Trending Now
Commercial Consumer Special Features

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
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.