Tom Bodett’s lawsuit against Motel 6, filed in June 2025 in Manhattan federal court, ended in a confidential settlement announced in late December 2025. Bodett accused the chain of skipping a $1.2 million contract payment after its sale to a new owner, then continuing to use his name and voice on its reservation line without permission. Motel 6 denied wrongdoing and argued that Bodett had breached the contract first. The parties reached terms after several months of mediation.
What Bodett Claimed
The complaint, filed on June 10, 2025 by Bodett and his company Bodett & Co., Inc. against G6 Hospitality LLC, G6 Hospitality IP LLC, Motel 6 Operating L.P., and related entities in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:2025-cv-04854), alleged breach of contract and violations of federal trademark law.1Claims Journal. Tom Bodett Sues Motel 62Reuters. Longtime Motel 6 Spokesman Tom Bodett Settles Lawsuit Against Chain
Two grievances drove the case. The first was money: a $1.2 million annual payment due January 7, 2025 under a 2020 amendment to Bodett’s longstanding agreement never arrived. The second was identity: Bodett alleged that Motel 6 continued to use his name and voice on its national reservation phone line for at least four months after he terminated the contract, without his consent. The underlying 2007 agreement had given Bodett strict approval rights over any use of his likeness, photograph, voice, name, or biography, and limited Motel 6’s right to use materials created under the deal to the contract’s term.3Tedium. Bodett Complaint
Bodett sought the $1.2 million in unpaid fees, unspecified additional damages, and a share of the profits Motel 6 generated through unauthorized use of his identity. His lawyers said they planned to use discovery to find out whether the chain had used his identity in other ways after the split.4New York Post. Motel 6 Spokesman Tom Bodett Sues Chain for Using Name, Voice Without Permission3Tedium. Bodett Complaint
What Triggered the Dispute
The trigger was an ownership change. In September 2024, Blackstone Real Estate agreed to sell G6 Hospitality, the parent of Motel 6, to Oravel Stays, the Indian parent of OYO, for $525 million in cash. The deal closed in December 2024.5Hotels Magazine. OYO Completes Acquisition of G6 Hospitality for $525M Weeks later, the January 7, 2025 payment came due and was not made.2Reuters. Longtime Motel 6 Spokesman Tom Bodett Settles Lawsuit Against Chain
Under the 2020 amendment, known as the Third Amendment, Bodett’s deal ran through November 5, 2025 with guaranteed annual payments of $1.2 million. The contract also gave him the right to terminate after a 48-hour cure period if a material breach occurred. He exercised that right and ended the relationship, which had run since 1986.3Tedium. Bodett Complaint
Motel 6’s Response
In a July 2025 court filing, Motel 6 denied wrongdoing and accused Bodett of breaching the contract himself, arguing that his breach excused the missed $1.2 million payment. Available reporting did not detail what conduct the chain pointed to or whether the argument was raised as a formal counterclaim or as a defense within its answer.2Reuters. Longtime Motel 6 Spokesman Tom Bodett Settles Lawsuit Against Chain
G6 Hospitality also made clear it did not plan to retire the slogan Bodett made famous. In a statement to Fortune, the company said: “Of course, we will continue to advertise keeping the lights on for you in times to come.”6Tedium. Tom Bodett Motel 6 Lawsuit
How the Case Ended
The parties held mediation conferences in August, September, and October 2025, and the court entered a stipulated protective order governing confidential materials in October.7Justia. Bodett et al v. G6 Hospitality LLC et al On December 19, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Reuters reported the settlement later that month. Terms were not disclosed, and lawyers for both sides declined to comment.2Reuters. Longtime Motel 6 Spokesman Tom Bodett Settles Lawsuit Against Chain
Formal closure hit a snag. The Clerk of Court flagged the December 19 filing as deficient because it lacked original ink signatures from all parties. On February 3, 2026, Judge Dale E. Ho ordered the parties to refile the stipulation in proper form or submit a joint status letter by February 6. The plaintiffs refiled that same day, and the court adjourned the next scheduled conference indefinitely. As of early 2026, the case had not yet been formally terminated on the docket, though the underlying dispute appears resolved.8PACER Monitor. Bodett et al v. G6 Hospitality LLC et al