Is it fair to characterize a founder of a failed startup as a con man? I.e. did he make claims that were factually untrue, and intentionally deceived investors?
It’s as fair as characterizing an athlete saying he’s competing to win.
A common logical/semantic mistake is that claims about future facts are lies. They can be exaggerations, and we do see this often and I’m personally annoyed when I see it. These claims can be genuine or not. I often think it’s easier for a founder to be naive (or crazy) than not, because they can believe (sometimes strongly) the things they say.
But neither are lies. A lie is when you misrepresent a fact, something that already happened. That’s a big causal difference.
The large gray area is when someone misrepresents intent (as with most cases for cons). This, I suspect, is the main questions you should be asking, but I suspect it falls into the ethics rather than legal debates.
What investors were intentionally deceived and what were the lies specifically? I saw something about a Kickstarter, but it's trickier as there is no promise of delivered products, it ends up being an donation basically, although Kickstarter try to make that intentionally vague.
There absolutely is a promise. Even if you manage to legally find a way to not get sued, taking advantage of the fact that everyone who gave you money believed it was a promise is still scamming them.
Isn't the whole thing (or two) with Kickstarter is that if it's not funded, everyone gets their money back and if it's funded, the creator tries to deliver the goals according to the timeline but if they don't, they're not held liable for that? So if for some reason the creator run out of money before they could send actual products, you as a donator don't have the right to get your money back? Maybe I misunderstood the whole concept of Kickstarter.
