It claimed violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the 1933 Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, and argued that the claims of the investment being non-risky were “materially false and misleading,” because “gambling by its very nature requires the undertaking of risk.” David Bayless served as Bartiromo’s lawyer.