MLB Players Inc. (MLBPI) is the exclusive group licensing agent for all active MLB players. Each player assigns his exclusive, worldwide rights in his name, image, and likeness to the MLB Players Association, which in turn assigns all rights to MLBPI. According to the complaint, the ability of professional athletes to control commercial use of their names, images, and likenesses is “a crucial return on their substantial career investment.” They have the inherent right, the complaint argues, to prevent their name, image, and likeness from being associated with a company, commercial product, or industry with which they do not want to be associated.
MLB Players.Inc.（MLBPI）是現役MLB球員全體專屬授權經紀人，每位球員讓與其全球專屬的姓名、圖像、酷似樣貌與MLB球員協會，其可逐個地讓與全部權利與MLBPI。根據訴狀職業運動員掌控商業上利用其等姓名、圖像及酷似樣貌係其等職涯實質投資之至關重要回饋。訴狀主張球員有防止其等姓名、圖像與酷似樣貌用於其等不想被用於與公司，商品或產業有所連結之活動之原生權利。
The complaint makes an interesting comparison between the two sportsbooks’ use of player images between baseball and football. Both DraftKings and bet365, on their baseball apps and websites, use the image of the players, (1) on individual player pages, (2) in team rosters, (3) as “featured players,” and (4) in introducing new features, among other uses. Both DraftKings and bet365 also use baseball player images in their advertising and in their social media posts, which include bet teasers featuring player images. In the equivalent football apps and websites, however, no player images are used.
The complaint asserts four causes of action. The first is a claim for relief under 42 Pa. Const. Stat. §8316, which creates a cause of action by any natural person whose name or likeness has commercial value and is used for any commercial or advertising purpose without the written consent of the person. The second cause of action is for a violation of common law misappropriation of publicity, which establishes a cause of action for individuals whose likenesses have been misappropriated without authorization and for commercial advantage. The third claim is for a violation of common law misappropriation of identity, which establishes a cause of action for invasion of privacy by misappropriation of an individual’s name and likeness. The fourth and final claim is for unjust enrichment.
本件訟爭原告主張4個請求權基礎；第1個聲明，依據成文法任何人之姓名或酷似樣貌未經書面同意不可為商業或廣告目的來利用。第2聲明與第1聲明雷同，只不過係用習慣法作為請求權基礎。第3聲明係援引習慣法上濫用人之身分，即濫用人之姓名與酷似樣貌構成侵害隱私權。第4聲明主張不當得利。
The complaint seeks injunctive relief that would enjoin DraftKings and bet365 from continuing to use the player images and likenesses on their sportsbook platforms, as well as actual damages as permitted under §8316. The complaint demands a jury trial.
本件原告聲請核發禁止令禁止DraftKings與 bet365於其博彩平台繼續利用大聯盟球員之圖像及酷似樣貌，同時依§8316請求判賠實際之損害賠償。訴狀要求進行陪審團審理。
Reportedly, MLBPI has also sued FanDuel and Underdog Fantasy in a similar suit in Manhattan.