3 ms·

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-verdict.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/business/media/gawker-hulk... > The damages a

by gohrt 10y ago

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-verdict.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/business/media/gawker-hulk... > The damages awarded to Mr. Bollea on Friday were compensatory: $55 million for economic harm and $60 million for emotional distress. (+$25M punitive) The numbers are nonsense (who has $60M worth of feelings?), but there you go.

FireBeyond 10y ago
I have no idea how $55M in economic harm was reached either. Bollea's net worth, at it's peak, was $25M, and is now estimated at $8M - though most of that has been stripped by divorce, before any of this happened. I am not sure how someone whose likely career income didn't reach $50M can now, in retirement, state that he suffered $50M in purely economic damages from this (remember, the emotional damage is separate, as is the punitive) - from what? Residuals on old WWF repeats? (Edit: he would still be entitled to these). The occasional celebrity endorsement? I can't see any realistic justification that his earning power for the rest of his life would total $55M, let alone that $55M only covers the fraction of his income that he _lost_ because of this. It stinks. About as much as Denton does.
- vonklaus 10y ago
  I agree. I will say that a case could be made in a different set of circumstances where some action caused a plaintiff to not only lose money, but also a steep opportunity cost which had to be forgone. Not the case here at all. Especially since, if kim kardashian is any indication, people in and attached to sex tapes profit significantly[0]. 0. Semi Joke.
- pervycreeper 10y ago
  >I have no idea how $55M in economic harm was reached either. >Bollea's net worth, at it's peak, was $25M It would include potential losses as well. His net worth is irrelevant.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    Right, again - his career income likely never hit $55M. Even at the peak of his career it would only have been in the <$5M range (one of the Wrestlemania events that he headlined listed his salary for the event at $150K - and there certainly weren't events like that on a monthly basis, so even factoring in endorsements and royalties)... So in retirement, no longer a public figure, aged 62, I have no idea how he can credibly argue he potentially lost $55M in income because of this. That he somehow "potentially" had $4M a year until his death (based on median age of death) of endorsements go up in smoke strains credibility. That seems to me to be some definite creative accounting that might be appealed.

by gohrt 10y ago

FireBeyond 10y ago

I have no idea how $55M in economic harm was reached either. Bollea's net worth, at it's peak, was $25M, and is now estimated at $8M - though most of that has been stripped by divorce, before any of this happened. I am not sure how someone whose likely career income didn't reach $50M can now, in retirement, state that he suffered $50M in purely economic damages from this (remember, the emotional damage is separate, as is the punitive) - from what? Residuals on old WWF repeats? (Edit: he would still be entitled to these). The occasional celebrity endorsement? I can't see any realistic justification that his earning power for the rest of his life would total $55M, let alone that $55M only covers the fraction of his income that he _lost_ because of this. It stinks. About as much as Denton does.

vonklaus 10y ago
I agree. I will say that a case could be made in a different set of circumstances where some action caused a plaintiff to not only lose money, but also a steep opportunity cost which had to be forgone. Not the case here at all. Especially since, if kim kardashian is any indication, people in and attached to sex tapes profit significantly[0]. 0. Semi Joke.
pervycreeper 10y ago
>I have no idea how $55M in economic harm was reached either. >Bollea's net worth, at it's peak, was $25M It would include potential losses as well. His net worth is irrelevant.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Right, again - his career income likely never hit $55M. Even at the peak of his career it would only have been in the <$5M range (one of the Wrestlemania events that he headlined listed his salary for the event at $150K - and there certainly weren't events like that on a monthly basis, so even factoring in endorsements and royalties)... So in retirement, no longer a public figure, aged 62, I have no idea how he can credibly argue he potentially lost $55M in income because of this. That he somehow "potentially" had $4M a year until his death (based on median age of death) of endorsements go up in smoke strains credibility. That seems to me to be some definite creative accounting that might be appealed.