Nicklaus Defamation Forum Clause Fails, Brand Rights Split Still Stands

Ben Thomson, LawFuel contributing editor

A Palm Beach County jury just handed Jack Nicklaus a US$50 million win against Nicklaus Companies for peddling two reputation-killers: that he toyed with a US$750 million LIV Golf offer and that he’s slipping into dementia.

The claim was brought against his former company, making it one of the most bitter business feuds in recent years.

The jurors bought neither, holding the company liable after deliberating for four and a half hours, not the individual executives. Cue a lot of brand-lawyering post-mortems and some uncomfortable conversations about forum clauses that don’t save you from torts.

The Case in One Page

The legal claim goes back almost two decades after Nicklaus sold the rights to his name, image and to his golf course design business for $145m. Nicklaus resigned from his executive role in 2017, and was bound by a five-year noncompete clause that prevented him from taking on new design projects. The restraint clause expired in 2022, the company sued him in New York, alleging that he had diverted business opportunities and secretly entertained talks with LIV Golf.

• The claims the jury believed: false statements that Nicklaus entertained a US$750m LIV deal and that he was mentally unfit. Both carried the classic defamation sting, namely exposure to “ridicule, hatred, mistrust, distrust or contempt.” Damages: US$50,000,000, five times his career earnings. Individuals are off the hook, the company pays.
• Public figure, high bar: Nicklaus is as public as it gets, which means the jury still found the statements false and made with the requisite fault under Florida law for a public figure. That’s not easy, but it occurred in this case.
• The parallel New York fight: earlier in 2025, a New York judge refused to block Nicklaus from using his own name in course-design work, although the company still controls apparel/equipment branding rights.

What’s New Here (And Not Widely Covered)

1. Forum clause didn’t cage the tort.
   In June, Florida’s Fourth DCA said the defamation claim didn’t “arise out of or relate to” the LLC agreement’s forum-selection clause. Translation for deal lawyers: your governing-law and forum boilerplate won’t necessarily hoover up later PR-style torts. To be aware of any future defamation punch-up, draft for it explicitly.
2. Litigation-privilege lines matter when you brief the press.
   A defense filing argued that sending pleadings to media is shielded by litigation and fair-report privileges. But how you communicate accusations outside court can become the defamation case. Treat “forwarding the complaint” as a legal decision, not a marketing reflex.
3. Corporate vs individual liability wasn’t an accident.
   The jury hit the company but cleared the named execs. That allocation will interest D&O counsel and indemnity drafters who assume “everyone or no one.” The verdict shows juries will surgically separate entity speech from executive speech when the record lets them.

Counsel and Paper Trail

• For Nicklaus: Eugene E. Stearns (pictured) and team at Stearns Weaver Miller led the trial win and the earlier appellate round that kept the case in Florida.
• For the defense (select appearances): filings and coverage identify teams including Cole Scott & Kissane for individual defendants in related proceedings and Constantine Cannon featured on the forum-fight papers.

Why GCs And Law Firm Partners Should Actually Read This

• Founder-brand companies are uniquely exposed. Loose chatter about health or mega-deals around a living brand is a litigation magnet. The “but it was in a pleading” instinct won’t necessarily save you once the story migrates to inboxes and newsrooms.
• Contract stacks can’t fix reputation torts. An aging M&A paper can’t babysit a 2025 comms strategy. Florida’s 4th DCA just gave you the cautionary case.
• Brand rights ≠ name rights ≠ human. New York confirmed Nicklaus can keep designing under his own name even if the company still sells the bear on polos. Expect this kind of “brand split” fight with every aging founder brand. Draft like you’ll be litigating it.

The Nicklaus Action Timeline

• 2007: Financing/transaction gives Nicklaus Companies significant control of Nicklaus-related commercial rights.
• 2017–22: Employment ends; non-compete runs; friction escalates. The company later claims LIV discussions and questions fitness; Nicklaus denies both.
• Mar–Jun 2025: New York order rebuffs attempt to block his design work; Florida’s 4th DCA keeps the defamation case in Florida despite forum clause.
• Oct 2025: Palm Beach County jury finds for Nicklaus; awards US$50m; no individual liability for executives.