The “Golden Bear” Is Still Shining: Jack Nicklaus Victorious in $50 Million Defamation Suit Against Nicklaus Companies

A Florida jury has delivered a $50 million verdict for golf icon Jack Nicklaus in his defamation lawsuit against Nicklaus Companies, LLC, and other related entities. The landmark verdict, following nearly four hours of deliberation in a Palm Beach County courtroom, finally brings the 85-year-old legend professional and personal vindication after a long, arduous legal process.

The Fuss Surrounding Nicklaus’ Name, Reputation, and LIV Golf Accusations

The origin of this lawsuit stems from a complicated business and legal past between Nicklaus himself and the company bearing his name. Nicklaus and businessman Howard Milstein originally formed Nicklaus Cos. as a branding and licensing company, but issues began to develop over company control and noncompete agreements, and image and likeness rights and licenses.

Nicklaus’ noncompete clause binding him to the company was nearing its expiration in 2022 when Nicklaus Cos. filed a lawsuit against him in New York, alleging that Nicklaus had breached several contractual obligations through engagement with Saudi backers related to LIV Golf, a Saudi-funded league rivalling the PGA Tour and shaking the very foundation of the professional golf industry. In May 2023, Nicklaus responded by filing a different suit in Florida, where he claimed that the statements made in the New York lawsuit were defamatory and false. The supposed lies told by Nicklaus Cos. were: (1) That Nicklaus was of impaired capacity to conduct his own business matters due to potential dementia and limited mental capacity; (2) That Nicklaus had entered into or considered a clandestine $750 million deal with LIV Golf; and (3) That Nicklaus Cos. had to intervene in order to rescue Nicklaus from the aforementioned interests.

Ultimately, Nicklaus and his legal team successfully argued this false narrative was intended to cast doubt on Nicklaus’ loyalty to the PGA Tour, tarnish his reputation, and shift public perception of his character ahead of future disputes about his ability to use his name, image, and likeness independently.

Verdict and Legal Ramifications

In reaching their decision, the jury ultimately found that Nicklaus Cos. had engaged in false publication of statements that were damaging to Nicklaus’ reputation, exposing him to “ridicule, hatred, mistrust, or contempt,” thus satisfying the threshold for defamation under Florida law. The fact that Nicklaus was awarded the full $50 million sought underscores the strong harm the jury found him to have suffered. Notably, the jury declined to assign personal liability to Milstein or other individuals, as they found that the company’s actions could not be verifiably traced back to a direct participant in publishing the defamatory statements about Nicklaus.

The decision is a resounding victory for Nicklaus after years of business and legal tension over control of his name and legacy. Prior rulings included a July 2024 arbitration in Florida, where Nicklaus was found to no longer be restricted by his Nicklaus Cos. noncompete clause—a decision allowing him to resume independent golf course design work. Further, a New York judge in early 2025 held that Nicklaus was entitled to his own name and image but the Nicklaus Cos. could maintain trademark rights in their name.

Significance of the Case and What’s Next

This ruling is a rare victory for a prominent plaintiff who makes defamation claims, particularly in a situation where the public figure is  85 years old. It is notoriously difficult to prove defamation under US law, most notably for public figures, due to the “actual malice” standard, which requires demonstrating that false information was distributed in knowing or reckless disregard of the truth of the matter.

This win goes far beyond dollar signs for Nicklaus. The court’s decision may also help him to solidify his grasp over the ways his name and legacy are able to be used going forward. The jury’s verdict sends a message that even when an individual shares their name with a prominent corporate entity, the person behind the name can push back on diminishing or distorted narratives under the right circumstances.

The decision may not be the last we hear about this case, as the defendants are highly likely to appeal. It’s also worth mentioning that to collect or enforce a $50 million judgment can be a lengthy legal process in its own right, even in a matter involving a high-profile company like Nicklaus Cos. The fight over licensing, trademarks, and the use of the Nicklaus name rages on in a number of courts. Despite the threat of ongoing litigation, Jack Nicklaus’ Florida win is a strong victory for reputation rights and personal control over his own name. It is an especially important ruling in a world where sports, branding, and corporations are increasingly intertwined.

Oliver Canning is a 3L at the University of Miami School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @OCanning and found on LinkedIn.