According to a Christmas Eve report from BloodyElbow, former UFC fighters Brandon Vera and Pablo Garza have filed an antitrust class-action suit against UFC parent company Zuffa, LLC. The complaint was filed in the California Northern District Court, and assigned to Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins.
According to a Christmas Eve report from BloodyElbow, former UFC fighters Brandon Vera and Pablo Garza have filed an antitrust class-action suit against UFC parent company Zuffa, LLC. The complaint was filed in the California Northern District Court, and assigned to Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins.
Pablo Garza cobbled together a 3-3 record in the UFC from 2010-2013, earning a Knockout of the Night bonus in his first fight against Fredson Paixao, a Submission of the Night bonus in his second fight against Yves Jabouin, and an upset decision win against Mark Hominick back in November 2012. He was cut from the promotion after being choked out by Diego Brandao in April 2013.
At the time, Garza’s release seemed somewhat premature — but it’s possible that the UFC was looking for a reason to get rid of him. Garza posted an update on Facebook last week that included this damning accusation: “Back in 2012 all ufc fighters were asked to sign a petition saying that the Ufc isnt a monopoly and that fighter are treated fairly. I was one of the few who chose not to sign it.”
And now, Vera and Garza join the legal mass-attack against the UFC that will become a major storyline in 2015. More ex-UFC fighters will surely file similar class-action suits (or join existing ones) in the near future, and we’ll keep you posted as that happens.
While doing more research on the class-action lawsuit filed against the UFC last week, Bloody Elbow’s John Nash came across something strange. A second, nearly identical class-action lawsuit against the UFC was filed yesterday, with MMA vets Dennis Hallman and Javier Vasquez listed as plaintiffs:
The fighters named are asking to be representatives for their class in lawsuit that accuses the UFC of an “overarching anticompetitive scheme to maintain and enhance its (a) monopoly power in the market for promotion of live Elite Professional mixed martial arts (“MMA”) bouts,1 and (b) monopsony power in the market for live Elite Professional MMA Fighter services.”
They are also represented by the same legal counsel that are representing Le, Quarry, and Fitch.
That last detail makes this particularly odd. Because why wouldn’t Hallman and Vasquez just join forces with the first lawsuit to begin with? Reddit user hulking_menace offers one possible explanation:
While doing more research on the class-action lawsuit filed against the UFC last week, Bloody Elbow’s John Nash came across something strange. A second, nearly identical class-action lawsuit against the UFC was filed yesterday, with MMA vets Dennis Hallman and Javier Vasquez listed as plaintiffs:
The fighters named are asking to be representatives for their class in lawsuit that accuses the UFC of an “overarching anticompetitive scheme to maintain and enhance its (a) monopoly power in the market for promotion of live Elite Professional mixed martial arts (“MMA”) bouts,1 and (b) monopsony power in the market for live Elite Professional MMA Fighter services.”
They are also represented by the same legal counsel that are representing Le, Quarry, and Fitch.
That last detail makes this particularly odd. Because why wouldn’t Hallman and Vasquez just join forces with the first lawsuit to begin with? Reddit user hulking_menace offers one possible explanation:
If the class is certified I’d imagine they’ll be combined at that point. In the meantime I’d assume there’s a strategic reason for separate filings. I’m no civil attorney, but off the top of my head perhaps this gets the same case in front of multiple judges, so if one judge doesn’t like the claim another might be more persuaded.
Huh. So this is basically the legal equivalent of having your wife stand in one grocery store checkout line while you stand in another, and if she gets to her cashier first, you rush over with your stuff or something? I don’t know, man. I’m no grocery store expert. But we’ll update you when we know more.
(This image is a placeholder, and will be replaced with a more relevant image as soon as we know what the lawsuit is actually about.)
The reported class-action lawsuit against the UFC filed by current and former fighters will be officially announced this afternoon. The communications firm Turner4D sent a notice to CagePotato.com and other MMAmedia entities yesterday afternoon, stating that the plaintiffs’ names and other details will be provided during a news conference beginning at 1 p.m. PT / 4 p.m. ET. The conference will be held at Hyatt Place San Jose/Downtown in San Jose, California. Autograph seekers are advised to wait by the bar and act cool.
CagePotato will be listening in to the proceedings via telephone machine, and we’ll type out important updates about the UFC class-action lawsuit below as we get them. Stay tuned, you guys. #TheTimeIsNow
– Even before the call starts, Greg Savage of Sherdog passes along some info: “The civil action is [titled] Cung Le, et al v. Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC…Media packet states that Cung Le, Jon Fitch and Nate Quarry are the participants in the suit…The case was filed today in the Northern District of California in San Jose. It seeks treble damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Antitrust Act.”
(This image is a placeholder, and will be replaced with a more relevant image as soon as we know what the lawsuit is actually about.)
The reported class-action lawsuit against the UFC filed by current and former fighters will be officially announced this afternoon. The communications firm Turner4D sent a notice to CagePotato.com and other MMAmedia entities yesterday afternoon, stating that the plaintiffs’ names and other details will be provided during a news conference beginning at 1 p.m. PT / 4 p.m. ET. The conference will be held at Hyatt Place San Jose/Downtown in San Jose, California. Autograph seekers are advised to wait by the bar and act cool.
CagePotato will be listening in to the proceedings via telephone machine, and we’ll type out important updates about the UFC class-action lawsuit below as we get them. Stay tuned, you guys. #TheTimeIsNow
– Even before the call starts, Greg Savage of Sherdog passes along some info: “The civil action is [titled] Cung Le, et al v. Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC…Media packet states that Cung Le, Jon Fitch and Nate Quarry are the participants in the suit…The case was filed today in the Northern District of California in San Jose. It seeks treble damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Antitrust Act.”
(“This is Xyience 101″…holy crap, that is still hilarious to me.)
Xyience — the sports nutrition and energy drink company that has been a prominent sponsor of the UFC since 2006 — has been sold to beverage company Big Red Ltd., according to MMAPayout. Though Big Red will continue to seek out the sports demographic for advertising Xyience and its energy drink brand Xenergy, the company has decided to end Xyience’s sponsorship of the UFC.
In an interview with BevNet, Big Red CEO Gary Smith explained that the decision was made as part of a new strategy that will see Xyience target a broader range of health-conscious consumers, like Crossfitters and marathoners. “I’m just gonna soften it up a little bit,” Smith said. “Make it a little less hardcore than the image that it’s got today.”
I’m no marketing genius, but let me explain something, Gary: This guy buys energy drinks; this guy does not. These guys buy energy drinks; these women do not. I’m tellin’ you bro, throw all your advertising dollars at meatheads and gay club kids.
According to BevNet, Xyience is by far the largest brand that Big Red has acquired, with approximately $45 million in annual sales, not incuding “vendors like gymnasiums and GNC- and Vitamin Shoppe-type stores, where it has claimed robust growth.”
The brand also carries some unfortunate baggage…
(“This is Xyience 101″…holy crap, that is still hilarious to me.)
Xyience — the sports nutrition and energy drink company that has been a prominent sponsor of the UFC since 2006 — has been sold to beverage company Big Red Ltd., according to MMAPayout. Though Big Red will continue to seek out the sports demographic for advertising Xyience and its energy drink brand Xenergy, the company has decided to end Xyience’s sponsorship of the UFC.
In an interview with BevNet, Big Red CEO Gary Smith explained that the decision was made as part of a new strategy that will see Xyience target a broader range of health-conscious consumers, like Crossfitters and marathoners. “I’m just gonna soften it up a little bit,” Smith said. “Make it a little less hardcore than the image that it’s got today.”
I’m no marketing genius, but let me explain something, Gary: This guy buys energy drinks; this guy does not. These guys buy energy drinks; these women do not. I’m tellin’ you bro, throw all your advertising dollars at meatheads and gay club kids.
According to BevNet, Xyience is by far the largest brand that Big Red has acquired, with approximately $45 million in annual sales, not incuding “vendors like gymnasiums and GNC- and Vitamin Shoppe-type stores, where it has claimed robust growth.”
In December 2009, the liquidating trustee for Xyience in bankruptcy proceedings filed a complaint against Zyen LLC and Fertitta Enterprises, claiming that Zuffa and its owners intentionally and fraudulently bankrupted Xyience Inc. in order to grab its assets and screw creditors out of the money that was owed to them. The case was eventually settled in 2012: “For hundreds of burned shareholders, this motion kills their hopes of any significant recovery.” According to this Las Vegas Review-Journal article, a “Fertitta entity” paid $525,000 to settle the claims.
Short version: Criminal launches energy-drink brand, UFC brass wrenches it away from him through nefarious means and eventually sells it to a soft drink company.
So long, Xyience — you’ve been a great punchline. The announcement that NOS is the new “official energy drink of the UFC” should be right around the corner.
(Chuck Liddell and Ben Rothwell, rockin’ their Xyience shirts during the company’s glory days.)
Tapout is one of the most prominent apparel brands in MMA, worn mainly by the sport’s in-crowd consisting of loyal, uber-cool and educated fans, many of whom who have either trained or competed in martial arts themselves.
In 2012, news broke of a major scandal involving the Tapout brand and Hitman Gear founder Dan Diaz. Diaz had sold Hitman to Tapout in 2007 in exchange for 1.25 million shares in the new company, a five-year employment contract and the promise of radical expansion of the Hitman brand.
What Diaz ended up getting was a raw deal, with Hitman being sold for zero dollars when Tapout was sold to Authentic Brands Group (ABG) in September 2010, thus making his shares worthless. His employment contract was also terminated with the sale to ABG, leaving him high and dry.
Rather than settling for chump change, Diaz opted to take his case to the courts. He’s not just suing for damages—Diaz wants the moral victory of exposing the corruption that robbed him of the personal pride he put into his company.
The trial between Dan Diaz and Tapout/Authentic Brands Group has been set for July 7 of this year. Beyond the damages Diaz is seeking, there are allegations that many MMA fighters who licensed their names for Tapout signature shirts like Chuck Liddell, Kenny Florian and Keith Jardine, have been defrauded of royalties.
(Diaz hanging with the Tapout crew, before it all fell apart. Photo via Dan Diaz/OC Weekly)
Tapout is one of the most prominent apparel brands in MMA, worn mainly by the sport’s in-crowd consisting of loyal, uber-cool and educated fans, many of whom who have either trained or competed in martial arts themselves.
In 2012, news broke of a major scandal involving the Tapout brand and Hitman Gear founder Dan Diaz. Diaz had sold Hitman to Tapout in 2007 in exchange for 1.25 million shares in the new company, a five-year employment contract and the promise of radical expansion of the Hitman brand.
What Diaz ended up getting was a raw deal, with Hitman being sold for zero dollars when Tapout was sold to Authentic Brands Group (ABG) in September 2010, thus making his shares worthless. His employment contract was also terminated with the sale to ABG, leaving him high and dry.
Rather than settling for chump change, Diaz opted to take his case to the courts. He’s not just suing for damages—Diaz wants the moral victory of exposing the corruption that robbed him of the personal pride he put into his company.
The trial between Dan Diaz and Tapout/Authentic Brands Group has been set for July 7 of this year. Beyond the damages Diaz is seeking, there are allegations that many MMA fighters who licensed their names for Tapout signature shirts like Chuck Liddell, Kenny Florian and Keith Jardine, have been defrauded of royalties.
Despite the implications of this news, outside of some mentions on smaller websites like FightOpinion and MMAPayout, larger MMA media outlets have been muted on the trial between Dan Diaz and Tapout. The last time MMA reporters showed this much disinterest in a scandal was in 2009 during the Xyience debacle between Rich Bergeron and Zuffa when Xyience went bankrupt, creditors were stiffed and Zuffa took over the assets.
Unfortunately for Rich Bergeron, the details of how Xyience went bust went over the heads of most people, especially those without the skills to decipher legal jargon. The Dan Diaz lawsuit poses similar problems, as it’s a story about how apparel manufacturers allegedly overcharged for their goods in exchange for various financial kickbacks—a messy, complicated series of underhanded maneuvers occurring in the shadows and crevices of accounting ledgers.
There might be more to the Dan Diaz/Tapout situation than meets the eye: Diaz alleged that UFC owners Lorenzo Fertitta, Frank Fertitta and Dana White were minority of Tapout prior to the company’s sale to Authentic Brands Group.
“There’s no direct proof, but that is what Dan Caldwell (also known as “Punkass”) told me on at least three different occasions,” Diaz told CagePotato. “During one of the depositions, an Authentic Brands Group rep did say [Lorenzo Fertitta, Frank Fertitta and Dana White] were still owners in the new Authentic Brands Group Tapout as well.”
Despite this, Diaz says that the Ferttita brothers and Dana White were non-managing members who had no knowledge of Tapout’s day-to-day operations. If that’s the case, then the owners of the UFC can hardly be held accountable for the charges leveled against Tapout.
The question of why MMA fighters who have had signature shirts made through Tapout would not seek legal action is also a prickly pear. Managers with multiple fighters under contract are not going to be eager to kick up a shitstorm with a company like Tapout that might sponsor other fighters they manage. Other fighters might simply not want to deal with the hassle of dealing with the legal system. Without any action from the fighters, however, it’s a license to steal from them—basically par for the course in the MMA game.
It will be interesting to see what the fallout of the trial is—if Dan Diaz is successful, it may inspire other MMA fighters to seek damages, generating further negative publicity for Tapout in the future.
The UFC’s ongoing war against dirty, no-good, PPV-stealing scoundrels wages on, Nation. Following a promise by Zuffa Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer Kirk Hendrick to “pursue the people who don’t want to pay for the goods and services they receive” earlier this year, the UFC has taken action against it’s first major target. His name is Steven A. Messina, a 27-year-old man who lives with his mom and dad in Great Kills, NY, and the UFC’s lawsuit against him is seeking a cool…32 MILLION DOLLARS. (My reaction)
While that figure is absolutely batsh*t bonkers crazypants, just wait until you hear how Messina got caught (via the NY Times):
UFC officials took note of Messina after he became increasingly cocky about his growing online status and referred to himself as the “Provider of Best MMA & Boxing rips online!,” the suit states.
He asked viewers to “Help Me Cap PPV!” through his PayPal account, called “MMA Capping Fund!,” according to the court papers, which allege he was trying to become the king of PPV pirates online.
The UFC’s ongoing war against dirty, no-good, PPV-stealing scoundrels wages on, Nation. Following a promise by Zuffa Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer Kirk Hendrick to “pursue the people who don’t want to pay for the goods and services they receive” earlier this year, the UFC has taken action against it’s first major target. His name is Steven A. Messina, a 27-year-old man who lives with his mom and dad in Great Kills, NY, and the UFC’s lawsuit against him is seeking a cool…32 MILLION DOLLARS. (My reaction)
While that figure is absolutely batsh*t bonkers crazypants, just wait until you hear how Messina got caught (via the NY Times):
UFC officials took note of Messina after he became increasingly cocky about his growing online status and referred to himself as the “Provider of Best MMA & Boxing rips online!,” the suit states.
He asked viewers to “Help Me Cap PPV!” through his PayPal account, called “MMA Capping Fund!,” according to the court papers, which allege he was trying to become the king of PPV pirates online.
He and his cohorts “are intent on becoming the most well known pirates and infringers on the internet by making their mark on the major torrent websites available on the internet,” the suit states.
In total, Messina uploaded 141 UFC pay-per-views through various pirating sites, and at around $320,000 a pop ($150,000 for each act of infringement, up to $110,000 for each illegal use of UFC content, up to $60,000 for intercepting UFC content), it looks like someone is about to be passed around the federal penitentiary ’till a brother can’t tell his fart from a yawn, if you know what I’m saying. But hey, at least he’ll be out of his parents house!
The lesson here is the same one we learned in the case of Homer Moore: If you get away with something illegal, maybe keep it to yourself for a while. Or forever. Seems simple, right?
