Scandals afflicting celebrity endorsers have been shown to lower firm stock value in past studies. We investigate how different firm reactions (disavowal of the endorser, support or silence) as well as different endorser reactions (apology, denial or silence) can mitigate or exacerbate scandals’ adverse impact while accounting for scandal severity. Using an event study analysis of firms traded on the US stock market, we show that silence is golden as both disavowal and support negatively influence the average abnormal return of firms’ stocks. In addition, the firm is better off when an endorser congruent with the brand denies the scandal whereas it is worse off when a congruent endorser apologizes. Finally, the severity of the scandal is especially damaging for average abnormal returns when the endorser is congruent rather than incongruent with the firm’s brand.