ESPN, NFL Battle Mark Gastineau’s $100M Lawsuit Over 30 for 30

ESPN, the NFL and other accuseds named in retired New York Jets defensive end Mark Gastineau’s $100 million breach of agreement and false recommendation claim argue in a brand-new motion to dismiss the case that the five-time Pro Bowler’s legal theories are contradicted by contracts he signed and defy standard principles of both the right of promotion and the First Modification.
In March, Gastineau submitted a problem in the Southern District of New York implicating ESPN and the NFL of using unauthorized video of him confronting retired Hall of Popularity quarterback Brett Favre at a sports memorabilia show in 2023. The video appears in “30 for 30: The New York City Sack Exchange,” which centers on Gastineau and teammates who became part of the highly-vaunted Jets’ protective line in the early 1980s.
The 30 for 30 includes a clip of Gastineau accusing Favre of “dropping” in the last minutes of the 2001 regular season, when New york city Giant defensive end Michael Strahan sacked Favre and broke Gastineau’s NFL record for most sacks in a single season. Gastineau, 68, states he has actually been mocked on social media over how he is represented. He says he never consented to the filming of the Favre confrontation. Gastineau likewise accuses ESPN and the NFL of putting him in an incorrect light by omitting video of Gastineau and Favre shaking hands at the end of their conversation.
Through a short filed by Alexander Kaplan and other attorneys from Oppenheim + Zebrak on July 3, ESPN and the NFL assert Gastineau’s case has numerous flaws.
First, Gastineau signed contracts with NFL Films that– ESPN and the NFL maintain– negate his claims. Of main importance Gastineau signed a talent contract which, in exchange for Gastineau getting payment, given NFL films the right to his NIL and other aspects of his right of publicity, including his voice, actions and biographical details. The contract also pondered Gastineau waiving any right to approve how he is represented or to approve the film itself. Likewise, the contract suggests that NFL films can customize and edit content. It likewise neither needs nor omits “any material to be specifically consisted of in the Film.”
ESPN and the NFL maintain that a plain reading of the legal language should end Gastineau’s case. As the offenders tell it, he approved “unconfined rights of publicity, consisting of with respect to the video about which he is complaining.”
Beyond contractual language, ESPN and the NFL tension the “Favre Encounter” was a newsworthy occasion and therefore exempt from right of publicity and personal privacy claims. The accuseds stress that the encounter was of public interest since it concerned Gastineau’s relationship with Favre relating to and dealt with a specifically dissentious topic: Whether Favre took a dive to provide Strahan the all-time NFL single season sack record.
“The Favre Encounter,” the offenders composed, “is a crucial advancement in the narrative of Gastineau’s tradition, how he was impacted by Favre’s sack, and how his New York City Sack Exchange teammates viewed him.”
ESPN and the NFL also argue that while Gastineau contends his impromptu meeting with Favre at the souvenirs show was a “personal encounter,” it was anything however. The accuseds mention that Gastineau and Favre were surrounded by onlookers. Gastineau also used a microphone offered by the movie crew, which suggests he “consented to the recording.” This was likewise not a surprise electronic camera circumstance: the film team was around Gastineau, and he was “completely conscious” of them.
In addition, ESPN and the NFL tension how in interpreting the First Modification, courts have actually regularly secured creative works, including documentaries and other biographical works. The New York Sack Exchange and its members, including Gastineau, are fair game for historic reports and other media, the offenders insist. Through what is often coined creative license, filmmakers likewise enjoy significant discretion in how they tell of occasions and narrate history.
Finally, ESPN and the NFL keep that Gastineau didn’t suffer any damages. He contractually assented to appear in a film and to the filmmaker managing how he appeared. Even more, “waived any right to examine or authorize” how he appeared in the movie. The defendants essentially argue that Gastineau is complaining about something he contractually accepted and therefore can’t establish he was hurt in such a way the law ought to treat.
Gastineau will have the opportunity to attempt to rebut ESPN and the NFL’s arguments by submitting an opposition to their movement to dismiss. The case is before U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.