Hulk Hogan vs. Gawker: Court orders $115M in damages

[lostfan]

So the Hogan verdict and judgment amount were upheld this week. Denton just posted a letter to Thiel in what amounts to a whiny, inaccurate, freezing speech argument. Man, f*** that guy. You outed a rich person and didn't expect him to try and ruin you?

They tried to act like there was some legitimate reason for outing him when they did that, too. Gay man is gay, not bothering anyone. WE MUST EXPOSE HIM

[Jenksismyhero]

They tried to act like there was some legitimate reason for outing him when they did that, too. Gay man is gay, not bothering anyone. WE MUST EXPOSE HIM

 

I'm relatively certain Gawker also blasted Grantland for outing that Dr. V person. There was quite a double standard there, which is why Gawker can go f*** themselves. They wanted to get the splashy, tabloid headline. Now they don't want to deal with the consequences.

[lostfan]

I'm relatively certain Gawker also blasted Grantland for outing that Dr. V person. There was quite a double standard there, which is why Gawker can go f*** themselves. They wanted to get the splashy, tabloid headline. Now they don't want to deal with the consequences.

I could see if Thiel was, you know, one of those anti-gay politicians who's hitting up rentboy and has a Grindr profile. But he wasn't, he was just... there. A person being gay, completely in and of itself, has nothing to do with anything.

[bmags]

Thiel's carte blanche funding of any lawsuit vs. Gawker now leads to lawsuite against their article on a company responsible for creating Trump's hair suing them for libel because they quoted a judge in lawsuits against the company.

 

 

[Jake]

As far as I'm concerned, if Gawker deserves to be punished for outing the guy, they should be punished for outing the guy. But that's not it because there's apparently no case to be made about it. Instead they will be drained of their resources trying to fight the guy's lawsuits of very dubious merit. Creates a disturbing precedent.

[StrangeSox]

Gawker also filed for Ch.11 recently.

 

Gawker may have had some crappy decisions, but they're not the only ones in danger of this sort of stuff. Similar lawsuits designed to harass the liberal magazine Mother Jones out of existence have benn tried, too.

[Jenksismyhero]

Defending lawsuits is the price of doing business. If you don't do anything wrong, you shouldn't be concerned about being wiped out financially. Gawker is a company worth tens of millions if not hundreds of millions. They have an ample budget for legal expenses. They're trying to spin this into some rich guy v. poor company crap and i'm not buying it. Don't post private sex tapes and out people who don't want to be outed and this wouldn't be a problem for them.

 

This is a great example of the internet bully crying foul once someone finally stands up to him and holds him accountable for being a dick.

[StrangeSox]

Defending lawsuits is the price of doing business. If you don't do anything wrong, you shouldn't be concerned about being wiped out financially. Gawker is a company worth tens of millions if not hundreds of millions. They have an ample budget for legal expenses. They're trying to spin this into some rich guy v. poor company crap and i'm not buying it. Don't post private sex tapes and out people who don't want to be outed and this wouldn't be a problem for them.

 

This is a great example of the internet bully crying foul once someone finally stands up to him and holds him accountable for being a dick.

 

But a company worth tens of millions can be sued forever by a guy worth billions, and eventually some balls are going to bounce your way. I don't think you'd be cool if someone filed lawsuit after lawsuit against you for over a decade over a personal slight even if you hadn't done anything legally wrong. Legal fees can still ruin people financially when they're in the right.

[Jenksismyhero]

But a company worth tens of millions can be sued forever by a guy worth billions, and eventually some balls are going to bounce your way. I don't think you'd be cool if someone filed lawsuit after lawsuit against you for over a decade over a personal slight even if you hadn't done anything legally wrong. Legal fees can still ruin people financially when they're in the right.

 

Claims without any merit generally get tossed.

[bmags]

And still cost the firm legal fees to get it tossed.

[StrangeSox]

Claims without any merit generally get tossed.

 

And sometimes claims that should be tossed or found against end up winning. And in both cases, it can cost huge sums of money to defend. That's the legal harassment strategy. It's not like Theil invented this. Every big company is going to win some cases and lose others.

 

edit: the NYT story from a few weeks back found that the lawsuits Theil secretly funded would pursue legal strategies in such a way so as to maximally inflict harm on Gawker, not necessarily to get the best results for the plaintiff. E.g. in the Hogan case, they dropped all of the claims that would have allowed Gawker's legal insurance to cover the judgements.

Edited June 15, 2016 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

And still cost the firm legal fees to get it tossed.

 

Sure, but that's the cost of doing business. That's why you get insurance.

 

edit: if you're in the tabloid journalism industry, you should expect to be sued occasionally by angry people who are upset about what you wrote.

Edited June 15, 2016 by JenksIsMyHero

[Jenksismyhero]

And sometimes claims that should be tossed or found against end up winning. And in both cases, it can cost huge sums of money to defend. That's the legal harassment strategy. It's not like Theil invented this. Every big company is going to win some cases and lose others.

 

edit: the NYT story from a few weeks back found that the lawsuits Theil secretly funded would pursue legal strategies in such a way so as to maximally inflict harm on Gawker, not necessarily to get the best results for the plaintiff. E.g. in the Hogan case, they dropped all of the claims that would have allowed Gawker's legal insurance to cover the judgements.

 

Gotta link? I'm curious to see what they dropped and why.

[illinilaw08]

Sure, but that's the cost of doing business. That's why you get insurance.

 

I think you can both say that Gawker was in the wrong outing Thiel, and also say that, on balance, billionaires backing lawsuits - particularly frivolous suits like the Trump hairpiece one appears to be - against businesses that they do not like or whose political ideology they disagree with is a bad thing.

[bmags]

I think you can both say that Gawker was in the wrong outing Thiel, and also say that, on balance, billionaires backing lawsuits - particularly frivolous suits like the Trump hairpiece one appears to be - against businesses that they do not like or whose political ideology they disagree with is a bad thing.

 

Correct. If you support Thiel doing this to a rag you don't agree with, just worry that if he has great success you will see it happen to one you do. Not recommending a policy difference here, but I thiel should be shamed. What a waste of money. He could be doing something productive with it. I too remember when John Galt got on the radio and said he was going to sue all of the takers of the world.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think you can both say that Gawker was in the wrong outing Thiel, and also say that, on balance, billionaires backing lawsuits - particularly frivolous suits like the Trump hairpiece one appears to be - against businesses that they do not like or whose political ideology they disagree with is a bad thing.

 

I'm not sure it's a bad thing. Can that be an abusive practice? Sure. But there is also good that can come of it. If it truly cost him 10 million to get 140 million for Hogan, what if Hogan didn't have 10 million? Isn't it a good thing that he provided the finances to obtain some justice?

[Jenksismyhero]

Correct. If you support Thiel doing this to a rag you don't agree with, just worry that if he has great success you will see it happen to one you do. Not recommending a policy difference here, but I thiel should be shamed. What a waste of money. He could be doing something productive with it. I too remember when John Galt got on the radio and said he was going to sue all of the takers of the world.

 

In his view this is the most philanthropic move he has ever made. He's putting bad tabloid bully "journalism" down a peg.

[bmags]

He has funded many more than that case. It's not theoretical that it's an abusive practice.

[Jenksismyhero]

And really, other than scale, how is his financial backing any different than any other contingency fee case? Lawyers finance lawsuits all the time. Does it really matter if it's a third party doing it instead?

[Jenksismyhero]

He has funded many more than that case. It's not theoretical that it's an abusive practice.

 

State Farm et al can make the same sorry argument. They get sued thousands of times a day in relatively bulls*** lawsuits. Again, that's part of the business. Don't become a sensationalist blog if you don't expect to piss people off and get sued as a result.

[StrangeSox]

Gotta link? I'm curious to see what they dropped and why.

 

Here's the NYT piece that revealed Theil's involvement:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business...ith-gawker.html

 

Speculation that a secret benefactor was backing Mr. Bollea’s case was whispered during the trial but largely dismissed as a conspiracy theory. It gained currency in large part as a result of an unusual decision Mr. Bollea’s legal team made: It purposely excluded a claim that would have allowed Gawker’s insurance company to help pay for its defense as well as damages. The move struck observers as odd because most plaintiffs seeking damages usually hope to settle the case by leveraging the deep pockets of an insurer.

 

Hogan settled with the man who made the tape for $5k. Rather than including a claim that would have allowed them to involve Gawker's insurance company, they went for the longshot and got it. Gawker's since filed bankruptcy, and there's no way Hogan ever sees $140M. In the end, this legal strategy will likely result in less money for Hogan but more damage to Gawker. I'm not a lawyer, but I've had to take ethics courses for my profession, and that sort of behavior doesn't strike me as particularly ethical.

 

Note too that this case is still being litigated in appeals court. It's entirely possibly that Gawker will either have the verdict overturned entirely or that the award could be substantially reduced, but Gawker is still a bankrupt company because of this.

 

And really, other than scale, how is his financial backing any different than any other contingency fee case? Lawyers finance lawsuits all the time. Does it really matter if it's a third party doing it instead?

 

State Farm et al can make the same sorry argument. They get sued thousands of times a day in relatively bulls*** lawsuits. Again, that's part of the business. Don't become a sensationalist blog if you don't expect to piss people off and get sued as a result.

 

I don't think State Farm has someone funding a long-running shadow legal campaign with the specific intention of bankrupting them as a company. I think using the court system to overwhelm an enemy with lawsuits and drive them into bankruptcy over a personal vendetta is what makes it different.

Edited June 15, 2016 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

And really, other than scale, how is his financial backing any different than any other contingency fee case? Lawyers finance lawsuits all the time. Does it really matter if it's a third party doing it instead?

 

A man with his means? Yes. It does matter.

[bmags]

But yes, I concede that if Peter Thiel was not an influential billionaire it would be a completely different story. Usually taking crucial elements out of a story does change things.

[Jenksismyhero]

Here's the NYT piece that revealed Theil's involvement:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business...ith-gawker.html

 

 

 

Hogan settled with the man who made the tape for $5k. Rather than including a claim that would have allowed them to involve Gawker's insurance company, they went for the longshot and got it. Gawker's since filed bankruptcy, and there's no way Hogan ever sees $140M. In the end, this legal strategy will likely result in less money for Hogan but more damage to Gawker. I'm not a lawyer, but I've had to take ethics courses for my profession, and that sort of behavior doesn't strike me as particularly ethical.

 

Note too that this case is still being litigated in appeals court. It's entirely possibly that Gawker will either have the verdict overturned entirely or that the award could be substantially reduced, but Gawker is still a bankrupt company because of this.

 

 

 

I don't think State Farm has someone funding a long-running shadow legal campaign with the specific intention of bankrupting them as a company.

 

1) Removing claims is par for the course in litigation. We do it all the time for strategic purposes before and during trial. Without more info, it's hard to say what motivated that move. It could have been a variety of reasons. And yes, you like having deep pockets of an insurance company for certain cases, but here Gawker was/is valued at more than they hoped to recover. I'm sure even they thought 140 million was a pipe dream. Whether Gawker had insurance to cover a verdict was sort of irrelevant. And again, maybe those claims were much stronger and those were the ones they wanted to present at trial. Tough to say without getting the specifics.

 

2) Settling with the camera guy for $5k isn't surprising. That happens all the time in litigation when there is a big corporation as a defendant and an individual. Jurors hate big companies. They know they have money. Keeping the guy in the case may have deflected some of the heat from Gawker. That's trial strategy.

 

3) It was still Hogan's call at the end of the day. Not sure why it's not ethical. Unless Thiel is calling all the shots, which no one has claimed, it's no different than an attorney litigating a case based on his financial stake. You don't/can't do that.

[Jenksismyhero]

But yes, I concede that if Peter Thiel was not an influential billionaire it would be a completely different story. Usually taking crucial elements out of a story does change things.

 

mm, k. You're talking about the ethics of the move. Money doesn't really matter. The same financial backing is being done on different scales in other cases.