Connect with us

Business

Want to Understand America? Watch ‘Shark Tank.’

Published

on

Want to Understand America? Watch ‘Shark Tank.’

One day in late June, a panel of investors entertained business ideas from around the country. A kitschy advent calendar. A fancy mini-fridge for drinks. A flashlight that emits beams from multiple angles. A machine that grows mushrooms. Bendable cups. Pet plants (for you, not your cat).

This was the Los Angeles set of “Shark Tank,” the ABC show that for 15 years has turned business negotiation into entertainment. Aspiring entrepreneurs use hustle, gross margins and cringe-worthy pitches to pry money from the so-called Sharks in exchange for a stake in their companies.

On one level, “Shark Tank” is your basic reality TV show. The pitches, which last about 45 minutes, are edited to snappy 12- to 15-minute segments with music scored for suspense over tight shots of bug-eyed, sweaty supplicants. Some founders leave the tank defeated, humiliated or in tears. Others leave triumphant with handshake deals. Stories about overcoming struggle and self-doubt feel calibrated to make you cry.

With a short window to impress the Sharks, contestants make the most of “hello.”

ABC

Advertisement

But if you watch the show as I did — most of its 15 seasons in one year — you might be struck by something else: the way it reflects the shifting contours of the American economy. The show started in August 2009, in the pit of the Great Recession. Over the next decade and a half, 1,275 people pitched their ideas on air. The comfort food and DVDs featured in those first years were replaced by the rise of online direct-to-consumer businesses, the allure of Silicon Valley and its build-at-all-costs mentality, and then the shock of the pandemic and the ingenuity that came out of it.

“Shark Tank” Over the Years

Season 1 (2009-10)

The show premiered against the backdrop of the Great Recession. Small business owners, like Tod Wilson, shared stories of struggle and overcoming adversity.

Season 3 (2012)

The economy was getting better and so was the show. Mark Cuban joined and raised the tempo and the stakes of the negotiations.

Advertisement

Season 4 (2012-2013)

Scrub Daddy, the smiley face sponge, makes its debut. Shark Lori Greiner, also known as the “QVC Queen,” helps turn it into one of the show’s most recognizable products.

Season 5 (2013-14)

This season brought items with a tech spin, like DoorBot. This object became Ring, which Amazon later acquired for more than $1 billion.

Advertisement

Season 6 (2014-15)

The founders of Bombas, the sock company, got a grilling for their high valuation. But the company has since become a huge success.

You can also see the emergence of consumer trends: online dating (the Coffee Meets Bagel app); combining capitalism with social good (Bombas socks); democratizing professional services (Everlywell home medical tests); reimagining personal care products (Dude Wipes). And, of course, the show has featured plenty of minimally useful, niche gimmicks that are destined to collect dust.

“‘Shark Tank’ is not a game show,” said Kevin O’Leary, a cutthroat investor known sarcastically in the tank as Mr. Wonderful. “It’s real life. It’s real investing, real money. And it reflects the real economy.”

Advertisement

It is also real exposure. Perhaps the show’s most important role in the entrepreneurial economy is not the advice or money the Sharks dispense, but to serve as a platform for the most American of business strategies: shameless self-promotion.

That exposure might be even more relevant now. As the show enters its 16th season on Oct. 18, the economy seems good on paper, but feels bad for many Americans, including entrepreneurs. Yes, inflation is starting to ease and interest rates are slowly coming down, but the economy still feels in suspense.

The show has been adjusting over the past few years. The Sharks are less excited about businesses with big valuations and more interested in discovering and funding smaller start-ups, said Barbara Corcoran, founder of the Corcoran Group who got rich selling Manhattan real estate and has appeared as a Shark since the show’s first season. “So there are a lot of low asks, which I really like because I love to get on the ground floor with people,” she told me.

These “mom-and-pa type people,” as Ms. Corcoran calls them, also make for better TV. Where “Shark Tank” is concerned, good TV comes from stoking a belief — some might call it a myth — that anybody with a good idea and some moxie can make it in America. Having difficulty brushing your daughter’s curly hair? A flash of genius provides the solution and you create a hairbrush company! It’s the American dream.

In fact, the Sharks invoked the American dream so often in my interviews with them that it felt like they were trying to make a sale. Mark Cuban, who is leaving the show after this season, put it this way: “The idea that maybe we had a little bit to do with amplifying entrepreneurship and making the American dream stronger, that’s pretty damn cool, you know?”

Advertisement

From Bakeries to Bots

The “Shark Tank” concept grew out of a Japanese show called “Tigers of Money.” It spread to Britain and Canada as “Dragons’ Den,” and in 2009, Mark Burnett, the television producer known for hit shows like “The Apprentice” and “Survivor,” adapted the idea for the United States.

It was, in some ways, exactly the wrong moment for a show about making it in business. “Shark Tank” debuted less than a year after the subprime mortgage crisis devastated the global economy. The investment firm Lehman Brothers had gone belly up and banks were not lending. Retail sales cratered. But the investors chosen as Sharks saw the show as a new way to make money. “It’s ’08, nobody’s buying more clothes and they can’t pay their rent or mortgage,” said Daymond John, the founder of apparel brand FUBU. “I went on the show to diversify my portfolio.”

That first season Mr. John and the other Sharks were pitched by a lot of sole proprietors: a woman opening a plus-size clothing boutique in Houston, a caregiver who created an elephant-shaped medicine dispenser. The money offered was $100,000 here, $50,000 there. Small potatoes.

Every pitch leads to an ask, a dollars-and-percent offer that starts the negotiation with the Sharks.

Advertisement

ABC

The producers and casting department recruited entrepreneurs by looking at local newspapers or relying on word of mouth. Tod Wilson, the first person to pitch in the “tank,” was one of them. He owned a bakery that sold sweet potato pies in Somerset, N.J., and wanted to expand nationwide.

“I had a couple small loans with some local community banks, but nobody was lending any more money,” Mr. Wilson said. On the show, Mr. John and Ms. Corcoran offered him a deal.

By the third season, in 2012, it was time to feel optimistic again. Businesses were making it pleasant to buy stuff online that you usually need to feel and touch — like clothes and eyeglasses. Uber, Airbnb and WeWork, with their outsize valuations, emboldened many companies to think they could hit it big. Instagram and Twitter, along with the ubiquity of Amazon Marketplace, offered new ways to sell goods.

Advertisement

Shark Tank, too, wanted a piece of Silicon Valley.

Producers recruited more ambitious companies through open calls held at Las Vegas convention centers and pitch sessions hosted on college campuses. Sweet potato pies gave way to apps and cloud-based solutions. In episode after episode, viewers saw entrepreneurship as a pathway to financial success and autonomy. The show was growing in popularity, and by Season 6 in 2014, had reached 9.1 million people tuning in per episode.

“The idea that anybody can make it into that top echelon, I think, is an incredibly American mind set,” said Angela Lee, who teaches at Columbia Business School.

In the first season, the average valuation for a company that appeared on the show was $376,000; a decade later, it had ballooned to $2.4 million, according to a database compiled by Halle Tecco, an adjunct professor at Columbia Business School who tracked the first 10 seasons of “Shark Tank.” The average amount the Sharks agreed to invest nearly doubled.

The Sharks didn’t always spot the winners. In 2013, the producers reached out to Jamie Siminoff, a successful serial entrepreneur who was tinkering in his garage with a product he called DoorBot.

Advertisement

Like all the entrepreneurs who appear on the show, Mr. Siminoff walked down a long hallway to the double doors that open up to the awaiting Sharks. But instead of those doors opening, Mr. Siminoff knocked three times, prompting Mr. Cuban to ask, “Who’s there?” After some back and forth, the door opened and Mr. Siminoff said, “Wouldn’t it have been nice to know who was behind the door before you let me in?”

He demonstrated how, with a smartphone and his video doorbell, anyone could see who was standing at their door. He had already sold more than $1 million of the devices through his own website alone.

The ensuing negotiations made for good TV. Four Sharks declined to invest, leaving only Mr. O’Leary. He offered Mr. Siminoff an infusion of cash in return for a percentage of every sale. Mr. Siminoff balked, saying those payments would bleed him of cash when he needed it most. With the suspense soundtrack playing underneath, Mr. Siminoff responded: “Respectfully, Mr. Wonderful, we’re going to decline.”

A year later, Mr. Siminoff renamed his business Ring, and four years after that, Amazon bought it for more than $1 billion.

At the time of his “Shark Tank” appearance, Mr. Siminoff “was actually broke, so I did want to get money,” he told me recently. “I didn’t get money, but I got awareness and credibility, which was amazing. I think if it wasn’t for ‘Shark Tank,’ I don’t think Ring would exist today.”

Advertisement

Mr. Siminoff came back as a guest shark in 2018; all the Sharks stood up and clapped.

The QVC Economy

Companies appearing on “Shark Tank” have reinvented the wheel (though the Smart Tire Company didn’t convince the Sharks it was needed). One contender confidently asserted that he had created a “vortex chamber” that harnesses the Earth’s rotation to create electricity. (The Sharks didn’t get it either. He left empty-handed.) The Sharks were pitched a wakeboard-like device that, when attached to an airplane, would allow people to fly. (No thanks. Too much of a liability risk.)

There are a lot of crazy inventions out there.

There are some pretty mind-numbing ones, too (insurance, enterprise software, energy production) that power the economy. But those kinds of companies are rarely reflected on “Shark Tank” for one simple reason: They don’t make for good TV.

Advertisement

Robert Herjavec, a Shark since the first season, has an expertise in cybersecurity. He likes to tell the story of taking Mr. Burnett out for dinner in the show’s early years and asking why producers weren’t bringing to the sound stage more of the back-end companies he gravitated toward.

As Mr. Herjavec recalls, Mr. Burnett told him, “I don’t know how to say this to you, but what you do is boring. You’re missing the entire point of the show.”

That dinner, Mr. Herjavec says, changed his perspective. “I need to invest in things that the consumer is going to get excited about,” he said.

What people get excited about, it turns out, is merchandise that you might purchase impulsively in the checkout line at TJ Maxx. Or, in Target or on the QVC shopping network, platforms where Lori Greiner, one of the mainstay Sharks, has strong connections. “What is a winning product? What do people want? Those are the basics,” Ms. Greiner said.

“Shark Tank” Over the Years

Season 7 (2015-16)

Simply Fit Board, an exercise board created by a mother-daughter duo, clinched a deal with Shark Lori Greiner. The founders said they did a million dollars in sales in the 24 hours after the show aired.

Advertisement

Season 11 (2019-20)

After 10 years, entrepreneurs recognize the value of “Shark Tank” as a potential marketing platform for their products.

Season 12 (2020-21)

Scores of small businesses closed during the pandemic, but “Shark Tank” celebrated the founders who were able to pivot, like Foam Party Hats.

Season 15 (2023-24)

More first-time entrepreneurs stepped onto the set, making the show feel more like the early seasons.

Advertisement

More than two-thirds of the U.S. economy is driven by consumer spending, and while that includes less tangible things like auto insurance, Ms. Greiner leans into the relatable. She has backed “Shark Tank” companies with some of the biggest sales: Scrub Daddy, the smiley-faced sponge; Simply Fit, the exercise balance board; and the Squatty Potty toilet stool.

Mr. Herjavec learned his lesson. Soon after his dinner with Mr. Burnett, he took an equity stake in what he says is his most memorable investment: Tipsy Elves, a company that makes ugly Christmas sweaters. It has done about $200 million in sales.

What You Don’t See in the Tank

Venture capitalists praise the show for introducing the masses to business concepts like “landed costs” and “scaling.” The show has also helped entrepreneurs find out what their company is worth.

Advertisement

Founders coming from small towns who might not have deep connections to major investors can use “Shark Tank” as a barometer, said Michael Jones, founding partner of Science Inc, a Los Angeles-based investment firm which has poured money into consumer brands like the canned water company Liquid Death and Dollar Shave Club.

“You can get a sense of what terms at least the Sharks think are normal,” he said.

But, venture capitalists are often quick to add, the show does not reveal the nitty-gritty of the negotiation process. The painstaking effort of combing through a company’s financials and ownership structure and analyzing the market sector happens off camera.

During that process, deals agreed to during the taping might be restructured or the founders or Sharks are allowed to walk away. According to an 2023 analysis from Forbes, roughly half of the deals clinched on the show never actually closed.

“They’re a platform to promote entrepreneurship and small businesses,” said Taryn Jones Laeben, founder of early-stage advisory and investment firm IRL Ventures, “more than they are a direct window into the venture capital world.”

Advertisement

Tod Wilson, the pie maker who appeared on the very first episode and received a handshake deal, decided not to go through with the offer. He eventually secured a bank loan. After some ups and downs, he continues to sell in Wegman’s and ShopRite supermarkets as well as online.

He beat the odds. While the show promotes the upside of the American dream, many entrepreneurs face constant challenges to stay in business. Nearly half of all small businesses fail within the first five years.

I don’t think people know how hard it is to be one of the ones that have made it,” Ms. Lee, the Columbia Business School professor, said. “The problem with social media and everything is that we only hear about the success stories.”

Marketing Muscle

Ms. Lee is also the founder of 37 Angels, an early-stage investment firm. She says she has done due diligence on dozens of companies that have appeared on “Shark Tank.” None of them, she says, described the show primarily as way to get funding. It was a way to market their products.

Advertisement

With nearly 4 million viewers, the show has become a cultural phenomenon. Dozens of blogs and podcasts are dedicated to the show and hundreds of memes on social media reference it (“Hello sharks. Today I am seeking $100,000 so I can just vibe for a bit”). Educators like Ms. Lee use episodes as case studies, and educational programs like Junior Achievement use it to teach students about how to start businesses.

Sarah Paiji Yoo, one of the founders of Blueland, which makes sustainable cleaning products, didn’t really need an investment. By the time she appeared on the show in 2019, she had already raised $3 million in venture capital. The funding she got from Mr. O’Leary was about “driving more awareness of our product,” and credibility, she told me later. Her company has now done more than $200 million in sales.

Dave Heath, co-founder of Bombas, the sock retailer, described the show as a “megaphone.” He appeared in 2014, and two months later his company sold $1.2 million worth of socks. Bombas has now surpassed $1.7 billion in lifetime revenue, making it the show’s most successful company.

Reinventing the wheel isn’t necessary to impress the Sharks. But some have tried.

ABC

Advertisement

The possibility of television exposure also piques the interest of traditional retailers. Ann Crady Weiss, the co-founder of Hatch, was scheduled to tape a “Shark Tank” segment with her husband to pitch a baby changing pad that doubled as a scale. Before the filming, she flew out to Target’s headquarters in Minneapolis to meet a buyer.

“I decided to leverage the fact that we were going to be on TV,” Ms. Weiss recounted. “The buyer gave us a shot at Target because of the ‘Shark Tank’ appearance.”

“We turn you into a rock star and you become part of the ‘Shark Tank’ culture and the lore of ‘Shark Tank’,” said Mr. O’Leary. “Your deal becomes legend and stays in syndication for decades. What venture capital can do that?”

On the weekend in June, toward the end of the second day of “Shark Tank” tapings, a young man in a black T-shirt burst through the set’s familiar doors to pitch his restaurant in Queens. He had saved $600,000, which impressed the Sharks, who offered encouragement. At one point, Mr. O’Leary said, “you should be mentoring me.”

Advertisement

Near the end of his time in front of them, Mr. John stood up, walked over and handed him his personal phone number.

“This is what I wanted,” the founder said before walking off.

Advertisement

Business

Snap sued by parents of girl who was raped by man she met on Snapchat

Published

on

Snap sued by parents of girl who was raped by man she met on Snapchat

Social media company Snap is being sued by the parents of a girl who was raped when she was 12 years old by a man she met on disappearing messaging app Snapchat.

The 111-page lawsuit, filed this week in a Missouri Circuit Court, alleges that Santa Monica-based Snap “enabled and facilitated the grooming, exploitation, and sexual abuse” of the minor who is referred to as “J.F.”

The company failed to disable or warn users about “dangerous” features that predators use on the app to find and abuse their victims, according to the lawsuit.

Missouri resident Gabriel Joel Valentin-Rios, who was 25 years old at the time, raped the girl in September 2021 after she sneaked out of her house, the lawsuit alleges. The parents are also suing the attacker, who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting the girl and is serving 18 years in prison, according to the Social Media Victims Law Center.

The center and the Holland Law Firm announced Thursday they filed the lawsuit on behalf on the victim’s family.

Advertisement

“This assault did not happen in a vacuum — it happened because Snapchat’s product design made it easy for a predator to reach and manipulate an unsuspecting child,” said Matthew Bergman, founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center, in a statement. “Snap executives have long known that their features create a perfect environment for predators to exploit children, yet they have repeatedly failed to make the platform safe.”

A Snap spokesperson said in a statement the company cares “deeply about the safety and well-being of all Snapchatters.”

“Our teams have worked for years to build safeguards, launch safety tutorials, partner with experts, and work with law enforcement to help prevent the misuse of our platform,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

The lawsuit is the latest legal hurdle facing Snap. Multiple parents who lost their children have previously sued the company, alleging that Snap failed to provide enough safeguards on the messaging app. Parents and child safety groups have voice concerns about how the app can be used to connect young people with drug dealers and child predators.

Other tech companies such as gaming platform Roblox, Google-owned YouTube and Facebook parent company Meta have also faced lawsuits over safety and mental health issues.

Advertisement

In March, a Los Angeles jury found that Meta-owned Instagram and YouTube were liable for the suffering of a California woman who alleged the platforms were built to addict young users. Snap settled that lawsuit before the trial started.

The latest lawsuit against Snap highlights safety concerns surrounding several features on the messaging app including “Quick Add,” which suggests users to connect with on Snapchat. Valentin-Rios used that feature to connect with the girl along with others to disguise his identity and groom her into sending explicit photos, the lawsuit said. The company’s “Snap Maps” feature allowed him to find the girl’s home address. And he used a cartoon avatar known as Bitmoji on Snapchat to conceal his age and present himself as a “a young, innocuous, and friendly looking boy.”

Families have faced challenges holding tech companies accountable for safety issues because a U.S. law shields platforms from being held liable for content posted by its users.

The lawsuit against Snap, though, says that it seeks to hold the company liable for the design and marketing of “unreasonably dangerous social media products.” It alleges that Snap co-created content such as Bitmojis abused by child predators and it designed the app to entice users to spend more time messaging others.

The lawsuit accused Snap of consistently turning a “blind eye” to underage users of its app. Snapchat requires users be at least 13 years old to sign up for an account, but J.F. started using the app when she was 11 years old. Snapchat was popular among her peers and friends so J.F. downloaded the app, which was presented as lighthearted and entertaining platform, without her parents’ knowledge or consent. The company failed to warn users about potential dangers, verify the ages of minors and lacks adequate parental controls, the lawsuit alleges.

Advertisement

Snapchat has a “family center” where parents can see their teen’s friends, view time spent and other insights about how their children are using the app. But the lawsuit said it isn’t enough because parents can’t restrict teens from sending private messages and children can create accounts without their parents’ knowledge.

The plaintiffs’ counsel also tested Snap’s “Quick Add” feature in 2023 and found that many of the usernames “generated by Snap’s recommendation algorithm appeared on their face to belong to predatory users,” the lawsuit said.

Valentin-Rios was also able to create a second Snapchat account with the username “Nocits21g” to connect with J.F. and to conceal the activity from his girlfriend, according to the lawsuit.

The rape victim, who was diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety and depression, started to engage in self-harm and expressed suicidal thoughts, the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit seeks a jury trial and financial damages for the harm allegedly caused by the company to the family.

Advertisement

“J.F. feels embarrassed and ashamed, but she is also angry that Snap facilitated this by design, and angrier still that Snap continues to operate its platform in the same manner today,” the lawsuit said.

Continue Reading

Business

Newsom blesses Uber ballot measure truce — but fight over car crash lawsuits continues

Published

on

Newsom blesses Uber ballot measure truce — but fight over car crash lawsuits continues

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Thursday to crack down on inflated profits stemming from car crash lawsuits, blessing a hard-fought compromise between Uber and the state’s trial attorneys that averts a November showdown between two of California’s most powerful and moneyed lobbying forces.

The deal, the fruit of months of negotiations, takes aim at the lucrative way doctors can charge for procedures on patients referred to them by personal injury lawyers.

If a law firm has a client who was hurt in a car accident, the lawyer will often send them to a doctor who will perform surgery on a “lien” basis, meaning the doctor will be paid from money that comes from a lawsuit settlement rather than through insurance.

Uber contends this arrangement has created an incentive for doctors and attorneys to collude to dramatically inflate medical bills. The more expensive the bill, they say, the bigger the resulting payout.

Advertisement

The law, SB 623, caps how much these doctors can charge when their patient is involved in a lawsuit against a ride-share company, which are frequent targets of litigation due to their top-of-the-line insurance policies. The new law will also require Uber to ramp up background checks of its drivers.

“We’re going to have a much safer state both for medical patients and passengers in Ubers,” said Nicholas Rowley, a prominent Texas attorney who helped bankroll the fight and took a leading role in the negotiations.

The law only applies to cases that involve ride-share accidents that take place after Jan. 1, 2027.

“This legislation puts meaningful guardrails in place to better protect accident victims, increase transparency and accountability in the medical lien system and strengthen safety,” said Ramona Prieto, Uber’s head of public policy for the Western U.S., in a statement.

For months, Uber and lawyers from across the state poured tens of millions into dueling ballot measures that threatened to devastate the profits of whichever side lost.

Advertisement

Uber fired the first shot with a ballot measure that sought to cap how much attorneys can earn in lawsuits involving auto accidents. The company argued attorneys were swindling their own clients, inflating medical bills of car crash victims to increase the value of the settlement and then pocketing a hefty chunk of the payouts.

The state’s trial attorneys countered that the fee cap would make small or difficult cases a money-losing endeavor and block scores of accident victims from the courts. They shot back with their own ballot measure that would increase legal liability for ride-share companies if a passenger or driver is sexually assaulted while on a ride, seizing on investigative reporting that highlighted assaults in Ubers.

“They were waiting for us to blink and we didn’t,” said Douglas Saeltzer, the head of the Consumer Attorneys of California, the lawyer trade group that pushed for the measure against Uber. “Their starting place, I don’t believe, was in the interest of protecting victims — it was in the interest of protecting Uber.”

With the passage of Thursday’s law, both sides have agreed to pull their respective measures from the November ballot, halting campaigns that had both parties amassing tens of millions in funding and blanketing the airwaves with ads.

“Now we can stop seeing all the commercials,” said Assemblymember Blanca Pancheo (D-Downey) at a Tuesday hearing.

Advertisement

The law, put forward by Assemblymember Diane Papan (D-San Mateo) and Sen. Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana), also caps the amount that can be earned by third-party investors who buy out a doctor’s lien in a personal injury case. These companies will purchase a doctor’s stake in the case at a reduced rate, then pocket a share of the payout if the case settles.

“Private equity and hedge funds buy them at a steep discount, then turn around and collect the full inflated amount,” Saeltzer said at a Tuesday hearing on the bill. “That’s money flowing to Wall Street investors, not patients.”

The law will require annual background checks for ride-share drivers and expand the list of offenses that disqualify someone from the job.

In addition to the ballot battle, has Uber sued two of LA’s most well-known personal injury firms — the Law Offices of Jacob Emrani and Downtown L.A. Law Group — accusing them of inflating medical bills and forcing clients to undergo needless and expensive surgeries to inflate the value of the claim. The firms asked the judge to dismiss the case Wednesday, arguing Uber had failed to prove fraud. Both firms have vehemently denied wrongdoing.

The lawsuit, filed last year, has put the plaintiff lawyers in the unusual position of playing defense. Listening in the audience at Wednesday’s hearings were the partners of Downtown L.A. Law Group and Jacob Emrani.

Advertisement

“Let’s be clear about what this Uber case really is,” said John Hueston, outside counsel for Emrani. “It’s brought by a $150 billion dollar company … to intimidate the plaintiff’s bar, exhaust its resources and chill the suits that hold Uber accountable.”

Michael Huston, one of the lawyers who represents Uber, countered that the case is “not an attack on the plaintiff’s bar.”

“We have brought suit against the two in this state … that are engaged in naked fraud,” he said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Snap CEO Evan Spiegel and Miranda Kerr help erase $550 million in medical debt for Californians

Published

on

Snap CEO Evan Spiegel and Miranda Kerr help erase 0 million in medical debt for Californians

Snap Chief Executive Evan Spiegel and his wife, supermodel Miranda Kerr, have helped pay off $550 million in medical debt for more than 261,000 Californians.

The couple made a multimillion-dollar donation to Undue Medical Debt, a nonprofit that provides debt relief to people in financial need. The organization acquires medical debt in bulk from hospitals, physician groups, collection agencies and other groups for a fraction of the cost.

“When someone you love is sick. All you want to do is focus on helping them get better,” Kerr said in a video with Spiegel. “That’s why we wanted to support this effort and help relieve medical debt, so families can focus on caring for their loved ones and really supporting their healing.”

The couple and the nonprofit didn’t disclose the exact amount of the donation, but a small gift can go a long way. Every $10 donated to Undue Medical Debt relieves an average of $1,000 in medical debt.

The gift comes as Americans struggle with the medical debt and rising cost of living. California is one of the most expensive states to live in because of soaring housing costs and energy prices. Concerns about wealth inequality have sparked heated political debates about how much billionaires should contribute.

Advertisement

In the United States, 1 in 4 adults are in medical debt, said Undue Medical Debt President and Chief Executive Allison Sesso in a statement.

“It’s a growing crisis undermining healthcare access, economic wellbeing and mental health and we’re so grateful that Evan Spiegel and Miranda Kerr share our belief that no one should go bankrupt because of a cancer diagnosis and no family should have to choose between insulin and groceries,” she said.

Californians whose medical debt have been paid off will start receiving a letter in mid-July from Undue Medical Debt informing them of the debt relief. Individuals can’t request debt relief because the nonprofit acquires bundled debt for thousands of people at once. Those who qualify for debt relief either earn at or below 400% of the federal poverty level or have medical debt that is more than 5% of their income, the nonprofit says on its website.

San Diego County residents benefited the most from the donation with total medical debt relief through the couple’s gift totaling roughly $99 million and affecting 40,369 people. In Los Angeles County, the gift provided $26.7 million in medical debt relief to 17,466 people, according to the nonprofit.

Spiegel, whose net worth is roughly $2 billion, and Kerr have helped relieve debt for others in the past. In 2022, the couple paid off the student loans for the Otis College of Art and Design’s graduating class.

Advertisement

In 2025, Spiegel was among business leaders and philanthropists who helped form the Department of Angels, a group that aims to help L.A.’s fire recovery efforts. The California Community Foundation, Snap, Spiegel and Snapchat co-founder Bobby Murphy committed $10 million to help start that group.

Roughly 200,000 people lost their homes in the January 2025 Los Angeles County wildfires. Spiegel, who grew up in Pacific Palisades and lost his childhood home in the fires, donated $5 million in immediate aid with Snap and Murphy that month.

He said in a statement that California has given so much to him and his family and that he cares “deeply about the wellbeing of our communities.”

“At a time when many families are already facing rising costs across nearly every aspect of daily life, an unexpected medical bill can create financial stress that lasts for years,” Spiegel said.

Undue Medical Debt said it’s abolished more than $40 billion of medical debt in all 50 states.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending