Over the past year, a series of articles has appeared across fringe legal and financial news platforms claiming to expose fraud, investor deception, and regulatory misconduct tied to a Dallas County lawsuit involving Solidaris Capital and its principal, Geoff Dietrich.
These articles present a familiar narrative: a supposed whistleblower, a shadowy technology company, misled investors, and a scandal likened to Theranos. The problem is not merely that the story is exaggerated.
The problem is that it is fundamentally untrue, procedurally misleading, and built on omissions so severe that the resulting narrative bears little resemblance to the actual record.
At the center of these articles is a Texas state court lawsuit filed by Solidaris Capital LLC.
Readers are told that the lawsuit “reveals fraud,” that investors were misled, and that regulatory violations have already occurred.
None of those statements is supported by the court record. The Dallas action has not resulted in findings of fact, rulings on the merits, or determinations of liability. The filings relied upon by these articles are procedural pleadings—special appearances, notices of authority, and jurisdictional arguments—not adjudications. No evidence has been weighed, no witnesses heard, and no claims proven.
Yet the media coverage converts allegations into conclusions, presenting claims as if they were findings.
This transformation from allegation to “fact” did not happen accidentally. The articles rely almost exclusively on language lifted from Solidaris’s own pleadings while ignoring responsive filings, procedural posture, and basic context.
Reputable outlets declined to publish similar stories after reviewing the underlying docket. The platforms that did publish share a notable trait: they require little verification, rely heavily on press-release style submissions, and do not independently confirm the substance of litigation claims.
What emerges is not journalism, but narrative laundering, where the mere existence of a lawsuit is treated as proof of wrongdoing.
The ethical failures do not stop at mischaracterizing the lawsuit. The articles also omit critical information about the plaintiff itself. Geoff Dietrich and Solidaris are portrayed as aggrieved parties sounding an alarm for the public good.
Absent from the coverage is the fact that Dietrich and affiliated partners have previously filed for bankruptcy, a matter of public record that directly bears on credibility and motive when coupled with the aggressive monetization strategies at issue.
Bankruptcy alone proves nothing, but when combined with the repeated extraction of massive promoter fees from tax-advantaged offerings, it becomes part of the factual landscape readers deserve to understand.
That landscape is far larger than a single lawsuit. From 2022 through 2025, Solidaris-controlled offerings followed a remarkably consistent structure. Investors were promised large charitable deduction multiples, commonly five times invested capital.
Funds were raised through layered entities, with licensing, marketing, and administrative expenses consuming the vast majority of proceeds.
Public records and offering documents show that in many cases approximately three-quarters of investor funds were used for expenses, with roughly two-thirds flowing to Solidaris or entities owned or controlled by Dietrich and his partners. Only a fraction of funds were directed toward manufacturing or acquiring the assets purportedly donated to charity.
Even more troubling, Form 990 filings reveal that several charities associated with these offerings did not report receiving the donated assets at all, despite investors claiming hundreds of millions of dollars in charitable deductions.
This disconnect between promoter claims, investor tax filings, and charity reporting is not addressed in any of the media articles attacking competitors. Instead, the articles redirect attention outward, framing others as deceptive while ignoring the structural and reporting gaps at the center of Solidaris’s own operations.
Nowhere is this selective framing more apparent than in the discussion of regulatory approval. Several articles suggest that the absence of FDA approval for concussion saliva testing technology is evidence of fraud. That implication is false.
Many early-stage diagnostic technologies lawfully operate without FDA approval during development and validation. Lack of approval is not fraud, and no regulator has made such a finding here. More importantly, the articles omit an inconvenient comparison: Solidaris previously promoted NovaDerm, a dermatological product that required significantly higher regulatory approval than concussion saliva screening tools.
NovaDerm was marketed as a product intended to affect human skin physiology, placing it squarely within one of the most tightly regulated categories of medical products. Yet NovaDerm had no FDA approval, no clearance, no completed clinical trials, no published studies, and no peer-reviewed validation. Despite this, it was monetized, promoted to investors, and used to justify massive charitable deductions. I
f lack of FDA approval were truly the standard for fraud implied by the articles, NovaDerm would represent a far clearer and more serious case. The complete omission of NovaDerm from FDA-focused critiques is not an oversight; it is narrative manipulation.
As scrutiny of these structures increased, the response was not transparency but escalation. Solidaris retained elite litigation counsel and public-relations firms and began using lawsuits as both legal tools and public-relations weapons.
The Dallas litigation was not confined to court filings; it was repackaged into articles, amplified through low-integrity publishing platforms, and used to generate defamatory narratives about competitors. Journalists who declined to publish were reportedly pressured or threatened.
Articles that were published repeated false statements about court findings that do not exist and regulatory violations that have never been issued.
This pattern—aggressive fundraising, heavy expense extraction, charitable non-reporting, selective regulatory outrage, litigation-driven publicity, and reputational attacks—forms a coherent picture. It is not the picture presented to readers. Instead, readers are given a morality play with a self-styled whistleblower hero and unnamed villains. The real story is more complex and far more troubling. I
t involves the misuse of charitable tax structures, the weaponization of litigation for competitive suppression, and the erosion of journalistic standards in favor of paid or influenced narratives.
The public interest in correcting this record is substantial. Hundreds of millions of dollars in charitable deductions are implicated annually. Billions in claimed deductions hinge on structures that have not been transparently reported or independently validated.
Media consumers, regulators, and courts rely on accurate reporting to separate allegation from fact. When journalism abandons that responsibility, the damage extends far beyond any single lawsuit.
This is not a story about innovation failing or startups collapsing. It is a story about how narratives are manufactured, how facts are buried, and how the absence of scrutiny enables repeated conduct. Truth does not emerge from repetition. It emerges from evidence, context, and honesty—none of which are present in the articles this rebuttal addresses.
The post How Solidaris’ promotion of NovaDerm exposes a pattern of regulatory evasion, charitable tax misuse appeared first on Invezz
