- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with readers working within the Basic Industries and Technology industries
Golf legend Jack W. Nicklaus recently secured a decisive legal victory against the company that bears his name, Nicklaus Companies, LLC (the "Company"). The jury's verdict marked the latest chapter in an unfortunately long-running legal saga over the control, branding, and reputation of Nicklaus vis-à-vis the company he founded and once led.
Back in March of this year, Nicklaus and his formerly wholly-owned company, GBI Investors, Inc., were granted summary judgment by a New York trial judge in an action brought against him by the Company alleging various breach of contract claims, including claims related to use by Nicklaus of his name, image and likeness following his resignation from the Company. The court's ruling effectively curtailed the Company's claims of ownership over Nicklaus' personal brand, which the court determined remained firmly with the golf icon himself (with the exception of certain trademarks that had been contractually assigned to it).
Significantly, the Company's initial complaint included examples of purported "misconduct" on the part of Nicklaus, alleging that he sought a highly compensated leadership role with LIV Golf, an upstart golf league financed by a sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia. The complaint noted, in part, that Nicklaus had, in "private," pursued a leadership role with "a new golf league backed by Golf Saudi," and that the Company had "saved Mr. Nicklaus from himself . . . [t]hanks to [its] intervention."1 It further stated that without such intervention, Nicklaus would "have not only tarnished his legacy and reputation, but severely damaged the Nicklaus Companies' name, brands and business."2
In 2023, Nicklaus filed suit in Florida for defamation against the Company and two of its officers, Executive Chairman Howard P. Milstein and Executive Vice President Andrew W. O'Brien. Among other claims, Nicklaus alleged that certain statements (including the ones quoted in the preceding paragraph) originally made in the New York litigation and thereafter "repeated to national media sources and other third parties," including publications like USA Today and Sports Illustrated, were untrue and damaging to Nicklaus' reputation.3 Chief among these allegations were claims made by the Company and its officers that Nicklaus had purportedly entertained a $750 million deal to endorse LIV Golf, in addition to insinuations related to his age and alleged mental decline.
Nicklaus vehemently denied these accusations and claimed the meetings he participated in with Golf Saudi were actually scheduled by the Company's Executive Vice President of Business Development.4 In one such meeting, Nicklaus was indeed offered a leadership role with the new Saudi golf league that would compensate him generously. However, according to Nicklaus' complaint, he "knew immediately it was something he could not do and turned it down on the spot" and "told the Saudi officials . . . he had to decline, as he had helped create the PGA Tour and it was an important part of his legacy."5 He also refuted insinuations by Company officials suggesting he suffered from dementia or diminished faculties, assertions which he claimed were entirely fabricated and intended to tarnish his legacy.
After the denial of multiple motions for summary judgment brought by all defendants, the case proceeded to a jury trial. Ultimately, the jury found there was no personal liability for Milstein and O'Brien, but determined that the Company had, in fact, actively participated in the publishing of false statements that caused damage to Nicklaus. The jury concluded that the Company acted with actual malice – either knowing the statements were false or acting in reckless disregard for their truth – and awarded Nicklaus $50 million in damages.
The verdict not only vindicated Nicklaus and his reputation, but also reaffirmed his legal standing as the rightful owner of his name, image, and legacy. Beyond its significance for Nicklaus personally, this outcome underscores the importance of maintaining clear contractual boundaries and exercising care in statements made during litigation – particularly in disputes involving long-standing business relationships and complex branding arrangements.
Footnotes
1. Compl. at ¶¶ 63, 80, 88-89, Nicklaus Companies, LLC v. GBI Inv'rs, Inc., Index No. 656284/2022 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. May 13, 2025).
2. Id. at ¶ 88.
3. Compl. at ¶¶ 144-46, Nicklaus v. Milstein, Case No. 2023CA009653 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Palm Beach Cnty. Apr. 21, 2023).
4. Id. at ¶¶ 162-77.
5. Id. at ¶ 174.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
