{"id":44515,"date":"2025-07-06T23:06:08","date_gmt":"2025-07-06T23:06:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/44515\/"},"modified":"2025-07-06T23:06:08","modified_gmt":"2025-07-06T23:06:08","slug":"nfl-films-and-espn-argue-for-dismissal-of-gastineaus-100m-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/44515\/","title":{"rendered":"NFL Films and ESPN Argue for Dismissal of Gastineau’s $100M Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n\tESPN<\/a>, the NFL and other defendants named in retired New York Jets<\/a> defensive end Mark Gastineau\u2019s $100 million breach of contract and false endorsement lawsuit argue in a new motion to dismiss the case that the five-time Pro Bowler\u2019s legal theories are contradicted by contracts he signed and defy basic principles of both the right of publicity and the First Amendment.
\u00a0
In March, Gastineau filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York\u00a0accusing ESPN and the NFL<\/a>\u00a0of using unauthorized video of him confronting retired Hall of Fame quarterback Brett Favre<\/a> at a sports memorabilia show in 2023. The video appears in \u201c30 for 30<\/a>: The New York Sack Exchange,\u201d which centers on Gastineau and teammates who were part of the highly-vaunted Jets\u2019 defensive line in the early 1980s.\u00a0
\u00a0
The 30 for 30 includes a clip of Gastineau accusing Favre of \u201cfalling down\u201d in the final minutes of the 2001 regular season, when New York Giant defensive end Michael Strahan sacked Favre and broke Gastineau\u2019s NFL record for most sacks in a single season. Gastineau, 68, says he has been ridiculed on social media over how he is portrayed.\u00a0\u00a0He says he never consented to the filming of the Favre confrontation. Gastineau also accuses ESPN and the NFL of placing him in a false light by omitting video of Gastineau and Favre shaking hands at the end of their conversation.
\u00a0
Through a brief filed by Alexander Kaplan and other attorneys from Oppenheim + Zebrak on July 3, ESPN and the NFL assert Gastineau\u2019s case has numerous flaws.\u00a0
\u00a0
First, Gastineau signed contracts with NFL Films<\/a> that\u2014ESPN and the NFL maintain\u2014negate his claims. Of central importance Gastineau signed a talent agreement which, in exchange for Gastineau receiving compensation, granted NFL films the right to his NIL and other aspects of his right of publicity, including his voice, actions and biographical information. The agreement also contemplated Gastineau waiving any right to approve how he is portrayed or to approve the film itself. Likewise, the agreement indicates that NFL films can modify and edit content. It also neither requires nor excludes \u201cany material to be specifically included in the Film.\u201d
\u00a0
ESPN and the NFL maintain that a plain reading of the contractual language should end Gastineau\u2019s case. As the defendants tell it, he granted \u201cunfettered rights of publicity, including with respect to the footage about which he is complaining.\u201d
\u00a0
Beyond contractual language, ESPN and the NFL stress the \u201cFavre Encounter\u201d was a newsworthy event and thus exempt from right of publicity and privacy claims. The defendants stress that the encounter was of public interest because it concerned Gastineau\u2019s relationship with Favre regarding and tackled an especially divisive topic: Whether Favre took a dive to give Strahan the all-time NFL single season sack record.
\u00a0
\u201cThe Favre Encounter,\u201d the defendants wrote, \u201cis a key development in the narrative of Gastineau\u2019s legacy, how he was impacted by Favre\u2019s sack, and how his\u00a0New York Sack Exchange<\/a> teammates viewed him.\u201d
\u00a0
ESPN and the NFL also argue that while Gastineau contends his impromptu meeting with Favre at the memorabilia show was a \u201cprivate encounter,\u201d it was anything but. The defendants point out that Gastineau and Favre were surrounded by onlookers.\u00a0Gastineau also wore a microphone provided by the film crew, which indicates he \u201cconsented to the recording.\u201d This was also not a hidden camera situation: the film crew was around Gastineau, and he was \u201cfully aware\u201d of them.
\u00a0
In addition, ESPN and the NFL stress how in interpreting the First Amendment, courts have consistently protected artistic works, including documentaries and other biographical works. The New York Sack Exchange and its members, including Gastineau, are fair game for historical reports and other media, the defendants insist. Through what is sometimes coined artistic license, filmmakers also enjoy substantial discretion in how they tell of events and narrate history.
\u00a0
Lastly, ESPN and the NFL maintain that Gastineau didn\u2019t suffer any damages. He contractually assented to appear in a film and to the filmmaker controlling how he appeared. Further, \u201cwaived any right to inspect or approve\u201d how he appeared in the film. The defendants essentially argue that Gastineau is complaining about something he contractually accepted and thus can\u2019t establish he was harmed in a way the law ought to remedy.
\u00a0
Gastineau will have the opportunity to try to rebut ESPN and the NFL\u2019s arguments by filing an opposition to their motion to dismiss. The case is before U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.
\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"ESPN, the NFL and other defendants named in retired New York Jets defensive end Mark Gastineau\u2019s $100 million…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":44516,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[39],"tags":[34572,34573,5723,34574,5287,1232,34575,62,67,132,68],"class_list":{"0":"post-44515","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-nfl","8":"tag-30-for-30","9":"tag-brett-favre","10":"tag-espn","11":"tag-ip-law","12":"tag-new-york-jets","13":"tag-nfl","14":"tag-nfl-films","15":"tag-sports","16":"tag-united-states","17":"tag-unitedstates","18":"tag-us"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/114808801851782794","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44515","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44515"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44515\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/44516"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44515"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44515"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44515"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}