Jack Nicklaus has won a $50 million defamation lawsuit against Nicklaus Companies, the firm he helped establish, after a Florida jury ruled that false claims about his health and ties to LIV Golf damaged his reputation.
The verdict was delivered by a Palm Beach County jury, which concluded that the 85-year-old’s public image had suffered as a result of false allegations and the court found that he was subjected to “ridicule, hatred, mistrust, distrust or contempt.”
According to the Palm Beach Post, the case centered on statements suggesting Nicklaus was exploring a $750 million deal with the Saudi-backed LIV Golf organization as the company also allegedly claimed that the 18-time major champion was battling dementia.
They suggested he is no longer capable of managing his personal or business affairs, but jurors ruled in favor of Nicklaus Companies executives Howard Milstein and Andrew O’Brien, who were both named in the lawsuit.
Who is responsible for paying damages?
That means neither will be personally responsible for paying additional damages, but the company itself, however, was ordered to compensate Nicklaus for reputational harm.
After the verdict, Nicklaus reportedly embraced family members and friends in the courtroom but declined to comment publicly as his legal team said the decision marked a significant victory for truth and integrity in sports.
“It’s always hard in a defamation case to prove damages to reputation,” Nicklaus‘ attorney, Eugene Stearns, told ESPN. “Because in particular for a guy like Jack, it’s always such a good one.
But I think what was important was the dispute that arose 3 years ago when the company told the world that Jack was selling out the PGA Tour for the Saudi golf, when it was not true. So, we’re happy that Jack’s been vindicated.”
The dispute began after Nicklaus Companies filed a separate lawsuit in New York that included the disputed claims, which quickly circulated in the media. Stearns argued that the narrative was intentionally misleading and aimed at discrediting Nicklaus.
“These are the people who planted a story,” Stearns told jurors during closing arguments, according to the Palm Beach Post. “The story is a lie. … What they wanted to create in the minds of the public is Jack Nicklaus is an old guy who sold out to the Saudis.”
Defendants react to Nicklaus victory
Nicklaus‘ relationship with the company dates back to 2007, when his own business, Golden Bear International, was merged into the new Nicklaus Companies – a partnership aimed to consolidate his golf design and branding under one corporate umbrella.
When Nicklaus stepped down from his executive duties in 2017, a five-year noncompete clause went into effect. The clause restricted him from endorsing competing products or designing courses independently until it expired, according to the Palm Beach Post.
In 2022, Nicklaus sought arbitration to confirm his right to once again use his name, image, and likeness for professional work.
Shortly after that move, Nicklaus Companies sued him, accusing him of breaching agreements, claims that included the false assertions at the heart of this case.
Attorneys for the defendants maintained throughout the trial that neither Milstein nor O’Brien had any intent to harm Nicklaus‘s reputation. They argued that the dispute was rooted in contract disagreements rather than a campaign to defame the golf legend.
With the verdict now settled, Nicklaus‘s legal team said they hope the decision brings closure to a years-long conflict that strained both professional and personal ties.
The ruling affirms, they said, that the Golden Bear‘s legacy remains untarnished.
Read the full article here
