Just when I think Cyberlux can’t f* up any worse… they do.
And not quietly. This time, they skipped court entirely, lost a $235,000 lawsuit by default, and still managed to get their CEO, Mark Schmidt, quoted in Forbes—because apparently, PR wins matter more than showing up to your own legal reckoning.
Last week, in a North Carolina courtroom that neither Cyberlux nor Datron World Communications could be bothered to attend, staffing firm Aerotek, Inc. stood solo. No opposition. No defense. Not even a half-hearted “our dog ate the lawsuit.” Just corporate silence.
So Aerotek did the obvious: it asked for a default judgment. And on April 11, 2025, the court gave them everything they asked for :
- $204,705.45 in damages
- $30,705.82 in attorney’s fees (because not responding isn’t free)
- 8% annual interest until Cyberlux coughs it up or combusts
Total? $235,411.27, with a side of poetic justice.
And the irony? While Cyberlux was being served a courtroom thrashing, its CEO was being celebrated as a “visionary” in Forbes. A nice reminder that public image is a playground, but courts are still real life.
Naturally, the Twitter pumpers erupted. “Look! He’s in Forbes!” they cheered, blissfully unaware their favorite stock had just faceplanted harder than a trust fall without trust. It’s like applauding a sinking ship because the captain gave a great TED Talk on buoyancy.
This wasn’t some misunderstood regulation or murky financial dispute. This was a breach of settlement. As in: You had one job—pay what you agreed to pay—and you didn’t. Then you ignored the lawsuit. Then you lost. Gloriously.
So here’s to Cyberlux, pioneers in the field of corporate self-sabotage. If there’s ever a business case study on how not to manage litigation, finances, or basic accountability, this saga belongs on the cover.
Mark Schmidt, take a bow. You’ve redefined what it means to miss the mark—both in leadership and, apparently, in court appearances.
Disclaimer
All posts, articles, and op-eds about Cyberlux Corporation are grounded entirely in information sourced from publicly available court records, government documents, and financial disclosures filed with OTC Markets. This content is intended for informational purposes only—it’s not legal advice, it’s not financial guidance, and it’s definitely not an invitation to dive headfirst into investment decisions. Our interpretations, opinions, and conclusions stem exclusively from these accessible resources. Ultimate adjudication of legal matters rests with the courts and qualified legal professionals. As always, you’re encouraged to verify independently because, let’s face it, trust but verify is a motto that never goes out of style. If you believe there is an error in our reporting and have verifiable proof, we encourage you to present it, and we will promptly review and address any inaccuracies.