Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial Consumer Special Features

The 6th Anniversary of the Peter Thiel / Hulk Hogan / Gawker Case: What Have We Learned?

March 17, 2022

The 6th Anniversary of the Peter Thiel / Hulk Hogan / Gawker Case: What Have We Learned?

This week marks the sixth anniversary of Terry Bollea (AKA professional wrestler Hulk Hogan) suing Gawker media for publishing a sex tape of him with a married woman. The suit made national news not just for its salacious nature—but because of the questions it raised regarding privacy versus journalistic freedom. Once news emerged that billionaire and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel was funding Hogan’s claim, the case became even more sensational. In this piece, we’ll take a look at exactly what happened in the case, and how it impacted (or hasn’t impacted) Litigation Finance. The Facts of the Case In 2007, Gawker, a website known for celebrity scandals and salacious content, published a piece with the headline: “Peter Thiel is totally gay, people.” Was this newsworthy? Did the piece have journalistic integrity? Reasonable people can disagree. Peter Thiel is in fact gay, which means the truth of the article protected Gawker from a libel suit. In 2009, an outed Thiel gave an interview in which he called Gawker ‘destructive,’ even as he acknowledged that the site wasn’t focused on ruining him personally. Thiel also speculated that Gawker maintained a disdainful attitude toward Big Tech, and may be focusing on punishing industry leaders as a result. Fast forward to 2012, when Gawker published a lewd video featuring wrestler Hulk Hogan (AKA Terry Bollea) having sex with Heather Clem—wife of radio personality “Bubba the Love Sponge.” This led to Bollea suing the media outlet for infringement of rights of publicity, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Bollea was represented by famed Los Angeles attorney Charles Harder. The published video, which Bollea claims was recorded without his knowledge or consent, contained a 2-minute section of a 30+ minute video—ten seconds of which included explicit sex acts. In 2016, Forbes magazine revealed that it was indeed Peter Thiel who was bankrolling Bollea’s case against Gawker. Speculation soared over what was viewed by many as Thiel’s revenge against Gawker for outing him. Did he want to ruin the media company, or purchase it, or simply malign the company that caused him personal and professional anguish? Thiel maintained that his involvement was philanthropic at heart, and meant to protect people from being bullied by unscrupulous media outlets. If anything, the lawsuit was meant to deter Gawker from intentionally releasing damaging content that lacked legitimate news value. Gawker founder Nick Denton, who was named personally in Bollea’s claim, made a statement about Thiel’s involvement in the case: “Just because Peter Thiel is a Silicon Valley Billionaire, his opinion does not trump our millions of readers who know us for routinely driving big news stories.” Also in 2016, a jury awarded Bollea compensatory damages of $115 million, plus punitive damages of $25 million—finding Gawker liable. A few months later, Gawker filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and began looking for a buyer. Several media outlets owned by Gawker were sold. By November 2016, Gawker and Bollea reached a settlement of $31 million. Today, Gawker’s flagship gossip site is still active. Gawker media sold off several of its prominent sites including Gizmodo, Jezebel, Deadspin, and io9. The LF Connection The case itself was of particular interest in and around the Litigation Finance community. Opponents of third-party legal funding asserted that Thiel’s actions in the case laid out an effective blueprint for the very wealthy to bankroll frivolous, but eye-catching cases. Billionaires could, some posited, use their wealth and legal connections to target specific companies, forcing them into bankruptcy. This speculation took place alongside the typical accusations that third-party litigation funding could clog court dockets with meritless actions meant to be quick paydays for funders and their clients. For example, Peter Sheer, a First Amendment expert, suggested that Thiel and others might abuse the power of third-party legal funding to intimidate media outlets. According to Sheer: “Winning is the ultimate chilling effect, but if you can’t win the case, you at least want the editors to think twice before writing another critical story about you.” To the keen-eyed observer though, it’s clear that Peter Thiel neither incited this case, nor had any real control over its outcome. Bollea initiated the case before Thiel’s involvement. At the time the case was decided, the jury was unaware that Bollea had a benefactor. And since the jury ruled in favor of Bollea, not Gawker, it’s clear that the case had merit. Thiel was always adamant that funding Bollea’s case (to the tune of $10 million) was about deterrence, not revenge. He explains that he wanted to “fight back” against Gawker’s practice of damaging reputations and bullying those with no means to pursue a claim to conclusion. As Thiel explains, “…even someone like Terry Bollea, who is a millionaire and famous and a successful person didn’t quite have the resources to do this alone.” While one could view Thiel’s actions as being contradictory to the principles of free speech—he disagrees. In fact, Thiel has donated to free speech defenders like the Committee to Protect Journalists. Thiel maintains that there is a profound difference between journalism in the public interest, and the type of media Gawker traffics in. That’s why he decided to take action. Thiel told the New York Times, “It’s less about revenge and more about specific deterrence. I saw Gawker pioneer a unique and incredibly damaging way of getting attention by bullying people even when there was no connection with the public interest.” Now, six years after the case has concluded—what have we learned? We haven’t seen a rash of billionaires funding cases, frivolous or not, with the intention of bringing down specific companies. That’s not to say billionaires aren’t financing claims the way Thiel did, only that they aren’t doing so publicly. Unlike traditional litigation funders, Thiel did not stand to make any money from Bollea’s lawsuit. Technically, Thiel should still be considered the litigation funder, though his term sheet wouldn’t be one most funders would want to imitate. The Gawker case has not led to a slew of frivolous, funded claim. Among other reasons, it simply doesn’t make financial sense to invest in a case lacking in merit. Bollea’s accusations against Gawker were affirmed by the jury, which resulted in a large award. So this claim was meritorious, even if Thiel’s motivation for funding the claim were not ROI-based. Media outlets are not cowering en masse over fears of punitive lawsuits from billionaires. That was much ado about nothing. Holding media outlets accountable for what they print (and occasionally, their motivations for doing so) is a vital and essential part of the free press. Free speech is not freedom to print anything—even something as personal as a sex tape—merely as an attention-getting device. Final Takeaways Can a lawsuit fall under the purview of Free Speech? Thiel believes so, and many others agree. This case addressed questions of privacy, free speech, and litigation funding. The end results demonstrated that we are all entitled to some element of privacy—even the celebrities among us. The Gawker case also affirmed that litigation funding still serves the interests of justice by enhancing the ability of claimants to bring lawsuits when they are wronged. The takeaway here should be that Peter Thiel afforded Hulk Hogan access to justice. Of course, when a billionaire backs a professional wrestler against a media company, sometimes the moral of the story can get lost beneath the headlines.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Financiers Organize on Capitol Hill

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Commercial

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.