MLB Players Association backs down from lawsuit against Pirates' parent company
- MLB Players Inc. filed a lawsuit alleging unlicensed use of players' names and images on social media.
- A verbal agreement was reached shortly after the lawsuit, leading to its voluntary dismissal.
- The Pirates have since announced a partnership with Sheetz for jersey patch sponsorship.
In the United States, an affiliate of the Major League Baseball Players Association moved to terminate its legal action against the parent company of the Pittsburgh Pirates and Sheetz Inc., a convenience store chain. This action was initiated on August 14, 2023, in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh, where MLB Players Inc. filed allegations of unauthorized use of players' names and images on social media platforms. The plaintiffs sought damages along with an injunction against the defendants, citing violations of Pennsylvania law and common law claims related to identity misappropriation and unjust enrichment. Following the lawsuit's filing, discussions took place between the parties, leading to a verbal agreement reached just a day later, according to the team’s statement. Subsequently, on December 23, 2023, MLB Players Inc. filed a notice signaling the voluntary dismissal of the case, which had identified Pittsburgh Associates and Sheetz as co-defendants. This legal decision coincided with the Pirates announcing a sponsorship deal with Sheetz for jersey patches on June 21, suggesting a cooperative relationship amidst the earlier conflict. The lawsuit specifically targeted social media posts by the Pirates and Sheetz that allegedly contained unauthorized images and likenesses of several players, including Paul Skenes and Andrew McCutchen among others. At present, MLB Players Inc. is involved in another ongoing litigation concerning the improper use of players' likenesses against betting companies DraftKings and Bet365. Additionally, they have filed suits against FanDuel and Underdog Sports. These legal challenges illustrate the complex relationship between player rights, social media marketing, and commercial partnerships within the realm of professional sports. In summary, the withdrawal of this case underscores a possible shift in relations between the parties regarding the usage of player likenesses. It also reflects the broader challenges faced by sports organizations and their affiliations as they navigate financial agreements while respecting the rights of players in the digital age.