Michael Jordan’s Basketball Hall of Fame ad lawsuits were two 2010 cases against Chicago grocery chains Dominick’s Finer Foods and Jewel-Osco, which ran unauthorized ads tied to his 2009 induction in a commemorative Sports Illustrated Presents issue. Jordan won an $8.9 million jury verdict against Dominick’s in August 2015, reached a confidential settlement with Jewel-Osco later that year, and donated the net proceeds to 23 Chicago-area charities.
The Ads That Started It
In 2009, Sports Illustrated Presents released a commemorative issue titled Jordan: Celebrating A Hall of Fame Career. Two grocery chains bought full-page ads inside without asking Jordan.
Dominick’s, a Safeway subsidiary, ran an ad featuring Jordan’s name, the number 23 on a Bulls jersey, and the tagline “YOU ARE A CUT ABOVE.” It promoted the chain’s “Rancher’s Reserve” steaks and carried a $2 coupon.1Womble Bond Dickinson. Jordan v. Dominick’s Finer Foods Amended Complaint Jewel-Osco’s ad, on the back inside cover, showed a pair of basketball shoes with the number 23 next to the chain’s logo, and repurposed its trademarked “Good things are just around the corner” slogan to salute Jordan as a “fellow Chicagoan who was just around the corner for 20 years.”2CBS News Chicago. Judge: Jewel Ad Mentioning Jordan Was Protected Noncommercial Speech Jewel received the space in exchange for agreeing to stock the issue.3Quimbee. Michael Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc.
Neither chain sought Jordan’s consent. The steak coupon particularly stung because Jordan operated his own steakhouse ventures, including Michael Jordan’s The Steakhouse N.Y.C. and Michael Jordan’s Steakhouse at Mohegan Sun.1Womble Bond Dickinson. Jordan v. Dominick’s Finer Foods Amended Complaint
The Claims Jordan Filed
Jordan and his licensing company, Jump 23, Inc., filed suit in 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, bringing separate actions against Dominick’s and Safeway and against Jewel Food Stores.4Courthouse News Service. Michael Jordan Sues for $10 Million Over Sports Illustrated Endorsements The Dominick’s complaint, before District Judge Milton I. Shadur, raised seven counts: violation of the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, Lanham Act trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false endorsement, dilution of the “MICHAEL JORDAN” mark, violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and common law unfair competition. Jordan sought more than $5 million on each count, plus punitive damages, fees, and an injunction.1Womble Bond Dickinson. Jordan v. Dominick’s Finer Foods Amended Complaint
The complaint framed licensing as central to Jordan’s business. Jump 23 holds trademark registrations for “MICHAEL JORDAN” and “23” and controls his commercial associations tightly, and Jordan described that licensing business as “just as important to him now as his professional basketball playing career once was.”1Womble Bond Dickinson. Jordan v. Dominick’s Finer Foods Amended Complaint
The Jewel-Osco Commercial Speech Ruling
Jewel-Osco won the first round. In February 2012, U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman ruled that Jewel’s ad was noncommercial speech protected by the First Amendment, finding it did not invite readers to enter any commercial transaction and treating the slogan reuse as “just a play on words.”2CBS News Chicago. Judge: Jewel Ad Mentioning Jordan Was Protected Noncommercial Speech That ruling would have ended Jordan’s claims.
Jordan appealed. In February 2014, the Seventh Circuit reversed in an opinion by Judge Diane Sykes, holding that the ad was commercial speech even without an explicit sales pitch. The court described “image advertising,” in which “appealing images and subtle messages alongside the advertiser’s brand name or logo” are used “to build goodwill for the brand,” as a recognized form of commercial speech. Applying the three-part test from Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., the panel found the piece was an advertisement in form, promoted the Jewel-Osco brand, and reflected an economic motivation to build brand loyalty. The court rejected Jewel’s argument that its congratulatory and commercial messages were “inextricably intertwined,” writing that “no law of man or nature compelled Jewel to combine commercial and noncommercial messages as it did here.”5FindLaw. Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., No. 12-1992 The case was remanded for proceedings on the merits.
Legal commentators viewed the ruling as narrowing the First Amendment defense for companies that use celebrity likenesses in brand-building ads that stop short of directly proposing a sale.6IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc.
The Dominick’s Damages Trial
The Dominick’s case moved separately. Judge Shadur granted Jordan summary judgment on his Illinois Right of Publicity Act claim, finding Safeway had misappropriated his identity.7CaseMine. Jordan v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, Summary Judgment With liability set, the jury heard only damages.
Valuations diverged sharply. A sports economist testifying for Jordan put the fair market value of his endorsement for the ad at $10 million, consistent with Jordan’s testimony that he does not accept endorsement deals below that threshold. Evidence at trial showed Nike had paid him $480 million between 2000 and 2012, and he had turned down an $80 million headphone endorsement offer.8Fish & Richardson. A Word of Warning for Super Bowl Fans Dominick’s countered that a hypothetical license for one grocery-store ad would have been worth no more than $126,900, and pointed out that only two customers redeemed the steak coupon.9CDAS. Jordan Victory
On August 21, 2015, after roughly six hours of deliberation, the jury awarded Jordan $8.9 million, landing much closer to his figure. The award was pegged to the market value of Jordan’s endorsement, not to any profit Dominick’s earned from the ad.10ESPN. Supermarket Chain to Pay Michael Jordan $8.9 Million for Use of Name11Forbes. Michael Jordan Nets Multimillion Dollar Verdict, Pledges to Give It Away
How Both Cases Ended
On September 22, 2015, Dominick’s and Safeway moved to overturn or reduce the verdict, calling it “grossly excessive” and asking the court to cut it to $250,000, order a new trial, or at minimum cap damages at $2.5 million.12Orlando Sentinel. Dominick’s Wants $8.9 Million Verdict in Michael Jordan Case Reduced13NBC Chicago. Dominick’s Seeks to Reduce $8.9M Awarded to Michael Jordan The matter ultimately settled on undisclosed terms.
The Jewel-Osco case had a December 2015 trial date. By that point Safeway had merged with Albertsons, which also owned Jewel-Osco, putting the same corporate family on both sides of the ledger.14Legal News. Michael Jordan, Jewel-Osco Reach Settlement15CBC. Michael Jordan, Supermarket Chain Settle16ESPN. Michael Jordan, Jewel-Osco Reach Settlement Over Alleged Misuse of Name
Where the Money Went
Jordan had said from the start he would give away anything he recovered. In December 2015 he announced that the net proceeds from both cases would go to 23 Chicago-area charities, matching his jersey number. Recipients included the Greater Chicago Food Depository, La Rabida Children’s Hospital, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Fund, Make-A-Wish Illinois, the Children’s Literacy Initiative, and After School Matters.17ABA Journal. Michael Jordan Settles Ad Case After Winning $8.9M Verdict, Donates Proceeds18Nonprofit Quarterly. Michael Jordan Donates Millions to 23 Chicago Nonprofits Jordan said the gifts were meant to “support the health, education and well-being of the kids of Chicago.” Individual grant amounts were not disclosed.19KTVU. Michael Jordan Donates $8.9M in Lawsuit Proceeds to 23 Charities