Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statuteappealclass action
plaintiffdefendantstatuteclass action

Related Cases

State v. Troisi, 169 Ohio St.3d 514, 206 N.E.3d 695, 2022-Ohio-3582
View Case »
Davis v. Electronic Arts Inc., 775 F.3d 1172, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1341, 43 Media L. Rep. 1073, 15 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 128, 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 229
View Case »
Heathmount A.E. Corp v. Technodome.com, 106 F.Supp.2d 860, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1735
View Case »
Virgin Enterprises Ltd. v. Nawab, 335 F.3d 141, 67 U.S.P.Q.2d 1420
View Case »
Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Universal Sec. Instruments, Inc., 606 F.3d 1353, 95 U.S.P.Q.2d 1432
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Daniels v. FanDuel, Inc., 109 N.E.3d 390, 128 U.S.P.Q.2d 1532

Facts

Collegiate student-athletes filed a class action complaint against online fantasy-sports operators for violating their right of publicity by using their names, images, and statistics without consent. The case was removed to federal court, where the operators successfully moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that their use fell under statutory exceptions. The student-athletes appealed, leading to a certified question of Indiana law to the state Supreme Court regarding the applicability of the right of publicity statute.

Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Defendants in Marion County alleging that Defendants 'used their names and likenesses in operating and promoting online fantasy sports contests without Plaintiffs' consent, and that doing so was a violation of their right of publicity under Indiana law.'

Issue

Whether online fantasy-sports operators need the consent of players whose names, pictures, and statistics are used in contests that condition entry on payment and distribute cash prizes.

Whether online fantasy-sports operators that condition entry on payment, and distribute cash prizes, need the consent of players whose names, pictures, and statistics are used in the contests, in advertising the contests, or both.

Rule

Indiana's right of publicity statute prohibits the use of a person's right of publicity for commercial purposes without consent, but includes exceptions for material with political or newsworthy value. The statute is interpreted to avoid constitutional issues and is applied logically and consistently with its underlying policy and goals.

Analysis

The court determined that the operators' use of student-athletes' names, pictures, and statistics fell within the newsworthy value exception of the right of publicity statute. The plain language of the statute did not restrict the type of entities that could use the material, and the use was deemed to have newsworthy value despite being behind a paywall. The court emphasized that the public's interest in the athletes' performances justified the operators' use of their information.

Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court concluded that online fantasy sports operators do not violate the right of publicity statute when using players' names, pictures, and statistics without consent, as this use falls within the newsworthy value exception.

In short, we answer this question narrowly and find online fantasy sports operators that condition entry to contests on payment and distribute cash prizes do not violate the Indiana right of publicity statute when those organizations use the names, pictures, and statistics of players without their consent because the use falls within the meaning of 'material that has newsworthy value,' an exception under the statute.

Who won?

The prevailing party in this case was the online fantasy sports operators, DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc. The court found that their use of the student-athletes' names, images, and statistics was protected under the newsworthy value exception of Indiana's right of publicity statute. This ruling underscored the importance of public interest in the athletes' performances and clarified that the operators' actions did not constitute a violation of the athletes' publicity rights.

The court found that the operators' use of names, pictures, and statistics was not stripped of newsworthy value because it was placed behind a paywall or used in the context of a fantasy sports game.

You must be