What did the 2022 lawsuit filed by BLM Grassroots allege, and what is its current legal status?

1. What the lawsuit alleged: money, control and accounts

The September 2022 complaint filed by Black Lives Matter Grassroots accused the national foundation and Bowers of fundraising off local chapters then mismanaging and diverting donations, alleging that Bowers used the foundation as a “personal piggy bank” and siphoned off more than $10 million in donor funds; plaintiffs also accused the foundation of shutting chapters out of decision-making and of locking local organizers out of main BLM social media accounts and even attempting to trademark chapter logos to block their use ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. The plaintiffs’ narrative about transition promises and lost infrastructure

Grassroots plaintiffs said the dispute flowed from an asserted transition plan tied to former executive director Patrisse Cullors—an expectation that assets and control would be turned over to on-the-ground organizers—which they allege was reneged upon, and that reliance on those promises led them not to build parallel infrastructure until it was too late to regain access and funds ^{[1] [7]}.

3. The defense and public denials: false, divisive and confusing, say defendants

BLM GNF and Bowers responded forcefully, calling the allegations “harmful, divisive, and false,” denying there was any plan to transfer all foundation assets to Grassroots and disputing the theft and mismanagement claims; the foundation and its lawyers argued plaintiffs were not entitled to the donated funds at issue and disputed the factual and legal bases of the complaint ^{[1] [5]}.

4. Courtroom fights: anti‑SLAPP motions, tentative rulings and dismissals

The case saw early procedural skirmishes, including a bid by defendants to dismiss under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute that a judge tentatively rejected during March 2023 hearings, but the litigation later culminated in a judge dismissing the fraud-style allegations as insufficiently pleaded or “confusing and unintelligible,” a dismissal reported by the Associated Press in November 2023 and echoed in subsequent BLM statements asserting the court found no enrichment by the foundation ^{[7] [4] [5]}.

5. Current legal status and aftermath reported by parties

As of the latest reporting in the provided sources, the lawsuit has been dismissed in court and the judge’s orders cleared the foundation of the pleaded claims; Black Lives Matter GNF publicized that dismissal as a complete exoneration, while BLM Grassroots said the dismissal deprived them of a day in court and that resource constraints prevented an appeal—Grassroots leaders framed their decision to cease appellate pursuit as choosing grassroots work over continued litigation ^{[4] [5] [6]}.

6. What remains unresolved and how narratives diverge

The public dispute has produced sharply different narratives: Grassroots chapters and some activists emphasize alleged betrayal and captured resources, while the foundation emphasizes legal defeat of the claims and calls the suit an attack that risked harming the broader movement; outside outlets and partisan commentators have amplified elements of both stories, sometimes leaning into broader critiques of nonprofit transparency or into defenses of grassroots autonomy, which suggests political and reputational stakes beyond the legal rulings themselves ^{[1] [8] [9]}. The available sources do not provide details about any appeal filings or confidential settlements beyond the public dismissal notices, so the record in these materials ends with the court’s dismissal and public statements from both sides ^{[4] [5]}.