Wpt Lawsuit

[blueodum 0]

They seem to have a problem with the release form, but the lawsuit doesn't have much to do with that.Of course it does - have you read the complaint?The players allege that the relase amounts to horizontal price fixing with zero compensation.

[DrLongstack 0]

You'd think "poker genius" Howard Lederer would know better than to bet $200 million into a $2 million pot.The players will lose the antitrust portion of the lawsuit for sure. Howard Lederer held his Full Tilt Invitational through Station Casinos, so obviously there are other venues in Vegas where you can hold a televised tournament successfully.The only way the players win is if they can convince he court that poker tours should not be allowed to exist. Suppose the players were to win this argument. Then what? Will we see a flurry of independent poker tournaments pop up that strike their independent television deals with 10 different networks? Of course not. There needs to be a tour for efficiency, if nothing else.The players could win the part about the WPT using their likeness without consideration, but what is that really worth? There likely wouldn't be compensatory or punative damage attached, the only thing that would change is the release. Sure, this would allow Andy Bloch, Greg Raymer, and Chris Ferguson's mole to continue their modeling careers unhindered, but I'm not sure how this is good for poker, or any viewer's stomach.At the end of the day, all this really does is hurt the WPT. The benefit to the players in general is marginal at best. So you have to ask yourself, "why is this happening?".

[srblan 0]

The players could win the part about the WPT using their likeness without consideration, but what is that really worth? There likely wouldn't be compensatory or punative damage attached, the only thing that would change is the release. Sure, this would allow Andy Bloch, Greg Raymer, and Chris Ferguson's mole to continue their modeling careers unhindered, but I'm not sure how this is good for poker, or any viewer's stomach.At the end of the day, all this really does is hurt the WPT. The benefit to the players in general is marginal at best. So you have to ask yourself, "why is this happening?".

I think the main goal of this is injunctive relief and voiding the previous contracts. Also, I'd say they have legitimate arguments in the portions about interfering with execution of a contract. The fact that they are being asked to waive all likeness rights for zero compensation is AT LEAST a violation of public policy, if not illegal. I'm not sure about proving actual damages. It is possible that you could find an expert that would calculate their equity (Jesus or Sklansky spring to mind) for the tournaments where they were excluded due to failure to sign the release; that's argument is pretty tough to win. However, courts don't usually like it when people are forced to sign away legal rights, so it's possible that they would award special or punitive damages. I'm not saying that I agree with the case. However, I think that it is a very legitimate issue, and, if nothing else, I hope that it leads to removing the parts of the release which waive all image rights. I don't like the idea of having to sign away my rights to a third party giving me no consideration for doing so.

[dirtystacks 0]

They seem to have a problem with the release form, but the lawsuit doesn't have much to do with that.Of course it does - have you read the complaint?The players allege that the relase amounts to horizontal price fixing with zero compensation.

Do you have a link to the pleadings? I'd really like to see them. I couldn't find the filing on the district court's homepage. Of course, I didn't spend a whole lot of time looking.I watched Daniel's video blog and skimmed this thread. Without reading the pleadings and getting some information on market share, I can't really say what the probability of success is, but here's the deal. Those players could certainly have an antitrust claim. Exclusive dealing contracts, like those with the MGM, can get you into antitrust trouble. I understand that there are other properties, but the question is one of market foreclosure. If the WPT has locked up a significant (need not be a majority) percentage of the tournament sites, they could be in violation of the Sherman Act or the Clayton Act. And when the court looks at the percentage of the market foreclosed, the players are going to argue that only certain properties are of sufficient quality to be included in the relevant market. That's a completely legitimate argument. Here's the situation though. There is at least a colorable claim here. An attorney isn't going to file a suit with absolutely no basis. We'll see how the court rules on the inevitable summary judgment motion.Finally, although the lawsuit may subject the players to public ridicule, it's really irrelevant to the actual lawsuit. Whatever the players have done in the past, it's not even admissible in an antitrust case like this (as far as their other claims, it's probably irrelevant as well--I'd have to see what they've claimed).

[srblan 0]

Do you have a link to the pleadings? I'd really like to see them. I couldn't find the filing on the district court's homepage. Of course, I didn't spend a whole lot of time looking.I watched Daniel's video blog and skimmed this thread. Without reading the pleadings and getting some information on market share, I can't really say what the probability of success is, but here's the deal. Those players could certainly have an antitrust claim. Exclusive dealing contracts, like those with the MGM, can get you into antitrust trouble. I understand that there are other properties, but the question is one of market foreclosure. If the WPT has locked up a significant (need not be a majority) percentage of the tournament sites, they could be in violation of the Sherman Act or the Clayton Act. And when the court looks at the percentage of the market foreclosed, the players are going to argue that only certain properties are of sufficient quality to be included in the relevant market. That's a completely legitimate argument. Here's the situation though. There is at least a colorable claim here. An attorney isn't going to file a suit with absolutely no basis. We'll see how the court rules on the inevitable summary judgment motion.Finally, although the lawsuit may subject the players to public ridicule, it's really irrelevant to the actual lawsuit. Whatever the players have done in the past, it's not even admissible in an antitrust case like this (as far as their other claims, it's probably irrelevant as well--I'd have to see what they've claimed).

http://www.wptlawsuit.com/files/29194-27742/Complaint.pdf from earlier post.

[dirtystacks 0]

So, I took a look at the complaint. Just to preface this, I have a J.D. from a good law school. However, none of this is legal advice. It's just my take on the lawsuit.Generally, I think they have a case, but I'm not sure they've characterized the conduct correctly. What they are arguing (among other things) is that their participation in a tournament and on TV is a valuable commodity, just as any other celebrity's personal appearance would be. The WPT, by making this agreement with all of the 'conspiring casinos', has essentially set the price for their appearance at $0. If they can get the court to accept this characterization of the situation, they're in pretty good shape. Under the Sherman Act Section 1, all agreements in restraint of trade are illegal. Obviously, this can't apply as broadly as it is written, otherwise every contract would be illegal as it restrains parties' actions. However, the courts have determined that some conduct is Per Se illegal. Basically, if your conduct falls into the category, it's illegal. That's it. They don't ask any other questions. The two major areas of per se illegal conduct are horizontal price fixing and horizontal market division. Price fixing is an agreement among competitors with respect to price; market divison is basically agreeing not to compete with each other in different markets. If the players can show that there's an agreement that does either of these things--sets prices or divides up the market between competitors--they're in pretty good shape. Now, if they can't get the court to accept that the agreement is market division or price fixing, they still have an agreement between competitors that affects competition. The court is going to look at all of the anticompetitive and procompetitiveeffects of the agreement. If it is net anticompetitive, WPT loses. Now, I really think that they would be better off alleging that the price fixing conduct is not prices being fixed for their appearance, but specifically, the prices and conditions of tournament play. The casinos are offering a product. Without this agreement, they would compete over fees and conditions for play. It's really no important that there are other tournaments because even a decision by 10% of the market players not to compete affects the entire market.What the WPT wants to do is make sure that the court rejects this price fixing characterization of their agreement. If they can do that, then they're going to argue that this agreement has a legitimate business justification--creation of a new product. They will argue that without these agreements the WPT wouldn't be what it is. They'll say they are necessary to create all of the resulting WPT products and publicity. Etc. etc.There is also a group boycott allegation that could work for the players too. I haven't read the case in a while, but the Ivy League schools settled an antitrust lawsuit in similar circumstances. They had all agreed to only give a certain amount for scholarships so they wouldn't have to compete to get the 'best' students. Basically, the students had to accept their terms if they wanted to go to an Ivy League school. Sure, the students could go to a different college, but that's not the point. Competitors (schools) agreed not to compete to the detriment of consumers (students).That's similar to the case here. Sure, there are other poker tournaments. But the WPT has gotten a bunch of competing casinos to get together and agree not to compete. And we haven't even considered market foreclosure to other entities that would like to compete with the WPT. Are you telling me that they haven't foreclosed a significant portion of the possible tournament sites? I'm not saying the players have a slamdunk. I think it should get past the summary judgment stage. I believe there are genuine issues for a jury. Once it gets to that point, the WPT may just settle the case. Litigation is expensive--especially bigtime antitrust litigation. Further, I don't think the casinos are going to want this going to trial. They are complicit in this price fixing agreement (if it is ultimately considered one). They do not want to expose themselves to treble damage liability here.Just my opinion.

[SteppinRZR 0]

Let's add a new fold...looks like the WPT could release a Daniel Negreanu video game if they wanted...........and exploitation thereof and of other audio-visual works (including, without limitation, “behind the scenes” productions and public service announcements) and any and all derivative, allied, subsidiary and/or ancillary uses related thereto (including, without limitation, merchandising, commercial tie-ins, publications, home entertainment, ******video games*******, commodities, etc.), in whole or in part, by any and all means, media, devices, processes and technology now or hereafter known or devised in perpetuity throughout the universe.(from the wpt release)

[CrazyJoe 0]

Let's add a new fold...looks like the WPT could release a Daniel Negreanu video game if they wanted...........and exploitation thereof and of other audio-visual works (including, without limitation, “behind the scenes” productions and public service announcements) and any and all derivative, allied, subsidiary and/or ancillary uses related thereto (including, without limitation, merchandising, commercial tie-ins, publications, home entertainment, ******video games*******, commodities, etc.), in whole or in part, by any and all means, media, devices, processes and technology now or hereafter known or devised in perpetuity throughout the universe.(from the wpt release)

ya but Daniel would just sue them, and win.... somehow, even though he signed it..... but he'd win! Just like last time when he asked WPT nicely to take down their banner and they did! The WPT are nice people that won't use any of the stuff they have the rights to without asking politely, well, at least the people that run WPT right now won't........I still want to know if Daniel knows they use a clip of him in a commercial for WPT Online... he hasn't said anything about that yet.

[chaosnhavoc 0]

I dont know if it has been asked but here it goes: Why is Raymer and Hachem supporting this? Is it because their contract with Pokerstars is in Jeapordy by signing the WPT release? If thats the case why arent they suing Pokerstars for not allowing them to further their career by playing in a WPT event.As far as Annie Duke is concerned I dont think she has a clue whats going on, she is doing it because her brother told her too. Also I love the statement that shes the best female poker player in the world.. LOL

[reedmcneal 0]

So, I took a look at the complaint. Just to preface this, I have a J.D. from a good law school. However, none of this is legal advice. It's just my take on the lawsuit...Long

That's the explanation I was looking for.I really like DN, but I have to say his characterization of these 7 players is pretty disrespectful ("the ungrateful 7"). Sure this may be bad timing, but fragmentation of the poker community is a bad thing, and the best thing for poker would be for high profile players to NOT take sides on this. I know he disagrees with them, but I think saying they have no shot is simply not true. Most of DN's defense of the WPT is coming from other people, and it seems most people on the forum with a good legal background do not claim that this lawsuit is baseless. And from what I know (albeit limited) anti-trust law is pretty far reaching.While I agree this is bad timing, I really don't think this will have any substantial impact on the future of online poker. This may be big news to the poker world, but the mainstream media is not going to cover this much at all. Additionally this may put certain poker entities in a poor light, but it really has nothing to do with online poker companies or the legality of online poker.

[dirtystacks 0]

Most of DN's defense of the WPT is coming from other people, and it seems most people on the forum with a good legal background do not claim that this lawsuit is baseless. And from what I know (albeit limited) anti-trust law is pretty far reaching.

Another thing to consider...antitrust law is shaped by the federal courts. The Sherman Act is pretty vague and the courts have a lot of leeway to determine exactly what it means. In the early 20th century, this manifested itself as per se illegality for all sorts of stuff. Basically, courts erred on the side of overinclusive rules that condemned all sorts of legitimate conduct. Through the latter half of the 20th century, the Chicago school of economics influenced to Supreme Court quite a bit. As a result, the pendulum swung the other way and application of the Sherman Act became arguably underinclusive. Now, it's kind of hard to predict what any given court will do. Some judges still buy the old Chicago view, which is essentially hands off and permissive with respect to some anticompetitive conduct. Other judges recognize that the original Chicago school theories were flawed. Those judges take a careful look at all of the evidence instead of leveraging theories that oversimplify the issues. As you can probably tell, I think the more nuanced view is superior. The whole point of this with respect to the lawsuit is that the way a particular district judge feels about antitrust is going to affect this suit significantly. I think they can get it into court regardless (survive a summary judgment motion), although I could be wrong.

[chaosnhavoc 0]

My drunk opinion yes I am drunk now, Is that besides Raymer and Hachem, the others are needing some attention. Raymer and Hachem joined a band wagon because of an alliance that was made.. This is Big Brother 8 in the making.Slop For You ALL!

[lilchefed 0]

I did speak to Andy Bloch. He went on one of his nutcase rants and is TOTALLY wrong about the anti-trust suit. It's seems so obvious to me. How could it be ILLEGAL for a casino to make a deal with the WPT to do shows with them exclusively? How? How is that possible??? So they can't do a show at Bellagio, BIG DEAL!! How about going to Caesar's, Wynn, Red Rock, Venetian, or a million other casinos that are totally available for them to do a show. Bellagio is a business, WPT is a business. They struck and exclusive deal, good for them... what right do any of us have to say that they can't do that? Why can't the WPT ask Bellagio for exclusivity with it's show?

This may have been brought up somewhere already (too lazy to look), but I think this fits. Universities and businesses sign exclusives deals to offer one brand of soft drink, at the school I attended you can only buy Coke products on campus grounds, all businesses that do anything on campus grounds must abide by this contract and can only sell Coke products (i.e. there are Pizza Hut franchises on campus, but they can't sell Pepsi, part of doing business on campus). This is a deal between two companies, same as the WPT and what ever casino, it binds the WPT to them and the casino can’t host other tourneys, seems pretty clear cut to me.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

good point herei don't think he'd call them the ungrateful 7 or the paranoid 7.

1. That would be impossible since that group would never do something like this.2. I didn't coin the term "ungrateful 7". It was coined by other media outlets. Frankly, I think it fits though... do these people forget what the poker landscape looked like before the WPT? Some were broke, and now are selling products they could have NEVER sold without the creation of the WPT.

[nutzbuster 7]

1. That would be impossible since that group would never do something like this.2. I didn't coin the term "ungrateful 7". It was coined by other media outlets. Frankly, I think it fits though... do these people forget what the poker landscape looked like before the WPT? Some were broke, and now are selling products they could have NEVER sold without the creation of the WPT.

Ungrateful is the perfect word.Never forget where you came from because you may have to go back there someday.These folks need to thanks their lucky stars.

[dirtystacks 0]

[Cut stuff about exclusive soft drink distro.]This is a deal between two companies, same as the WPT and what ever casino, it binds the WPT to them and the casino can’t host other tourneys, seems pretty clear cut to me.

Respectfully, it sounds the same to you because you don't know the applicable law. It's not the WPT's deal with a single casino. It's the WPT's deals with many casinos in what allegedly constitutes a price fixing agreement among competitors.And I'd like to add something here just to bring some balance to this. Ignoring the law for a second, why does the WPT have to have exclusivity at these casinos? Are you saying that they can't have a WPT if they allow the Bellagio to have another TV tournament? Why not? Is it really so critical to the WPT's success to have these broad rights with player licensing and exclusivity deals? I mean, if you argue that having more TV tournaments at those venues would 'water down' the WPT's value, then you've pretty much conceded that these deals are having an anticompetitive effect.

[CrazyJoe 0]

I still want to know if Daniel knows they use a clip of him in a commercial for WPT Online... he hasn't said anything about that yet.

1. That would be impossible since that group would never do something like this.2. I didn't coin the term "ungrateful 7". It was coined by other media outlets. Frankly, I think it fits though... do these people forget what the poker landscape looked like before the WPT? Some were broke, and now are selling products they could have NEVER sold without the creation of the WPT.

This is what is said about EVERY professional athlete that demands things, WPT is making money directly from the players. The players aren't making money from the WPT, at least not directly, they are making money from the other players. I really think the WPT is being too greedy and these players are taking a stand over it. The WPT makes crazy final table blind structures to keep the taping time low so they don't have to pay crews overtime, they give nothing really back to the players in general. Specific players get seats in their "invitationals" but what does that do for the regular players, nothing. I think it's good that the players are doing this, whether they are right or wrong, there has been nobody "standing up to" the WPT as of yet, they can do pretty much whatever they want and get away with it. Win or lose, I think it's GOOD for poker that these players are filing this lawsuit, it should make the WPT think about what they are doing.

[yeager70 0]

I have a question for DN...They say they are "speaking" for the players and you say that the WPT possible made them what they are.....didn't No Limit Holdem's popularity make you what you are but you want to change the WSOP to less of those events. Also, why would WSOP change to less of these events when they are massive overflows in the No Limit events. The "players" obv. want NL yet you are trying to change the schedule to make less of them???

[maximumllc 0]

I agree, DN acted too soon in blasting the suit (in not one but two blogs). He's not talking from a position of legal knowledge and really isn't in a position to judge the merits of the case. It's pretty clear that the suit is not "baseless" and that the players have "zero shot." There is no good that can come out of DN commenting at this time. Do you really think that the 7 players are going to say "well, DN is against us, so, on second thought, we don't have a case, let's drop it." ? So, while there is no upside to him taking sides, there is downside as he is insulting them and setting himself up to eat serious crow when the case isn't immeditely dismissed.The tactful thing to do would've been to avoid commenting until such time as more facts have been brought out, more research done, and the WSOP is over. How about don't focus on the suit (which DN's commenting on won't affect one way or the other) but focus on the WSOP. I was a bit surprised to see so much attention paid to this by DN the day before the big event. Obviously, he did fine on Day 1c, so that's neither here nor there, I guess, but in terms of focus, this should not have gotten the time or attention from him that it did.

[anselm 0]

I don't have time to read every post but I had a question that I hoped some of you could answer.If I understand correctly, part of the problem for Lederer & Co. (excluding Hachem/Raymer for a sec) is that their agreements with Full Tilt Poker prohibit them from legally signing the WPT form. So why not go after FTP instead of the WPT? It would be quieter and less controversial especially considering the huge stake in that company that many of them have. Get their FTP contracts re-worded to allow them in the WPT after which point it just becomes personal preference. Ie, then they may not want to sign for some of the same reasons but there's nothing in their FTP contracts prohibiting them.Would seem to clear up some of the problems, no?

[CrazyJoe 0]

I don't have time to read every post but I had a question that I hoped some of you could answer.If I understand correctly, part of the problem for Lederer & Co. (excluding Hachem/Raymer for a sec) is that their agreements with Full Tilt Poker prohibit them from legally signing the WPT form. So why not go after FTP instead of the WPT? It would be quieter and less controversial especially considering the huge stake in that company that many of them have. Get their FTP contracts re-worded to allow them in the WPT after which point it just becomes personal preference. Ie, then they may not want to sign for some of the same reasons but there's nothing in their FTP contracts prohibiting them.Would seem to clear up some of the problems, no?

why should they go after FTP. FTP is PAYING THEM MONEY in exchange for their exclusivity, WPT gives them crap-all.

[anselm 0]

Ok, not "go after" -- I merely meant take it up with FTP since it could be more easily changed. Not attack or sue or anything, just legally alter their contract so it doesn't preclude them from other ones similiar to the WPT's (most notably in the area of image use I believe).

[Kei 0]

Ok, not "go after" -- I merely meant take it up with FTP since it could be more easily changed. Not attack or sue or anything, just legally alter their contract so it doesn't preclude them from other ones similiar to the WPT's (most notably in the area of image use I believe).

Because they are being compensated for their image use when FullTilt uses it, they are not with the WPT. Why bite the hand that feeds you?

[dirtystacks 0]

Ok, not "go after" -- I merely meant take it up with FTP since it could be more easily changed. Not attack or sue or anything, just legally alter their contract so it doesn't preclude them from other ones similiar to the WPT's (most notably in the area of image use I believe).

The problem isn't that their Fulltilt contract prevents them from playing the WPT. I mean, that may be true in their cases, but the real issue is that they have to surrender those rights, which are valuable, for nothing. As a result, they can't sell them to other people such as Fulltilt. Basically, they're saying, "Hey, we pay you fees to enter these tournaments. We shouldn't have to give you our image rights too. You don't have to have these releases to make your money off television contracts."I think Daniel kind of feels that the players' image wouldn't have any value without the WPT--that the WPT created the value that they are saying they are being forced to surrender. That may be the case. Or it may be the case that the poker boom in and of itself would have resulted in star names even without the WPT. It's really just speculation either way, but it's also irrelevant to the question of whether the WPT is engaged in conduct that violates the Sherman Act.

[stevedar 0]

1)Grant of Rights. Player acknowledges that WPT Enterprises, Inc. and its successors, assigns and licensees (collectively, “WPT”) will berecording, filming, photographing and exploiting films and/or television specials or other audio visual works of and/or about the Tour Event (jointly and severally the “Programs”). Player consents to such filming and exploitation of the Programs, and hereby irrevocably grants to WPT the right to film, record, edit, reproduce and otherwise use Player's name, photograph, likeness, signature, biographical information, appearance, actions (including, withoutlimitation, revealing Player's hole cards), conversations (including, without limitation, “behind the scenes” footage and filmed interviews with Player) and/or voice (the “Recordings”) in, and in connection with, the Programs and/or the “World Poker Tour” and in connection with the distribution,advertising, publicizing, exhibition, and exploitation thereof and of other audio-visual works (including, without limitation, “behind the scenes” productions and public service announcements) and any and all derivative, allied, subsidiary and/or ancillary uses related thereto (including, without limitation, merchandising, commercial tie-ins, publications, home entertainment, video games, commodities, etc.), in whole or in part, by any and all means, media,devices, processes and technology now or hereafter known or devised in perpetuity throughout the universe. This is from the wpt release...I was going to post the whole thing but it's long and the rest doesn't really add much besides saying that you have no right to sue for use of your image, that you will dress the way they want, and will do at least one interview.The release is pretty horrible but by the same token...don't like it, don't sign, don't play