Fez — Selena Gomez is asking a US federal court to dismiss fraud claims brought by investors in “Wondermind,” the mental health startup she co-founded with her mother, Mandy Teefey, and entrepreneur Daniella Pierson.

The dispute began on August 13, when Wondermind SRS 44 LLC and Bespoke Wondermind SPV I LLC sued Wondermind Global, Gomez, Teefey, and Pierson in Delaware federal court. A federal docket shows the case includes securities-related claims and a jury demand.

The plaintiffs say they invested nearly $1.2 million (MAD 11 million) in the company in 2022 after receiving what they allege were misleading representations about its leadership, resources, business prospects, and Gomez’s role in promoting it.

Reuters reported that investors were told Gomez would be actively involved in developing the company and marketing it to her enormous social media audience. 

The lawsuit alleges that those expectations never materialized.

Investors say promised projects never arrived

“Wondermind” launched in 2021 around the idea of making mental health and “mental fitness” resources more accessible through media, digital products, and celebrity-backed content.

According to the complaint, investors were presented with plans that included a mobile application, corporate partnerships, advertising deals, and other revenue-generating projects.

The investors now claim several of those initiatives either did not exist or were never completed.

TechCrunch quoted the complaint as alleging: “The partnerships did not exist. The initiatives never materialized. The app was never built.” 

The plaintiffs also allege the company struggled to meet basic obligations, including paying employees and vendors, while investors remained unaware of the extent of its financial problems.

They say they only learned how serious the situation had become after media reporting exposed internal difficulties in 2025.

The complaint seeks to recover the investors’ money or obtain damages, along with interest, attorneys’ fees, and other costs. 

Gomez says investors targeted the celebrity name

Gomez is now pushing back strongly.

Her lawyers filed a motion on August 26 seeking dismissal of all claims against her, arguing that the lawsuit wrongly treats her public association with “Wondermind” as evidence that she managed the company.

The filing argues that Gomez invested in the company and held a minority stake but did not participate in its day-to-day management.

Her legal team says Teefey and Pierson, who served as co-CEOs, controlled the company’s operations, while Gomez acted as a consultant and Chief Impact Officer.

Attorney Mathew Rosengart has called the fraud allegations against Gomez “absurd” and suggested her team could seek sanctions against the plaintiffs for including her in the lawsuit.

Forbes reported that Gomez’s lawyers argue the complaint does not identify a specific fraudulent statement she personally made to the investors.

That point could become central to whether the case against her survives.

A mental health brand that ran into trouble

“Wondermind” was launched with considerable attention because of Gomez’s longstanding public advocacy around mental health.

The company positioned itself as more than a media site, promising a broader ecosystem of tools and products aimed at improving emotional wellbeing.

Its celebrity association was also a major part of its public identity.

That is precisely what now sits at the heart of the lawsuit: investors argue Gomez’s expected involvement helped make the company attractive, while her lawyers say she was never responsible for running it.

Pierson has denied wrongdoing, while Gomez’s legal team is seeking to remove her from the case entirely. The court has not yet ruled on the dismissal request. 

The lawsuit therefore remains at an early stage, with none of the investors’ allegations proven in court. But the case has turned “Wondermind’s” celebrity-backed promise into a legal fight over a basic question: how much responsibility does a famous co-founder carry when investors say the company behind the name failed to become what they were promised?