the entire saga with gawker media, for one thing.
Hogan and Gawker had arranged to settle. Hogan was even going to be offered part ownership of Gawker, and had agreed to that. Until his (I mean Thiel's) lawyers met with him again.
And then he withdrew that offer.
And then after winning the lawsuit, withdrawing the only claim that would allow Gawker's insurance to allow Hogan to recoup some of his claimed damages (including an "estimated $50M loss of _future_ earnings, for a man who has only made $25M in his career and retirement so far).
Let's be very clear, Thiel's involvement in this was much more than "paid legal costs".
Regardless of the right or wrongs of thing, it is a generally accepted concept in modern societies and legal systems that you should have the right to face your opponent, not for them to have a legal 'proxy' or puppet acting at their behest.
Was Hogan wronged? Absolutely. But, as noted above, he'd agreed to settle until Thiel (and/or his lawyers) stepped in (again). He'd also settled with the person who _made_ the nonconsensual recording _and_ sold it... for _1/55,000th_ what he claimed in damages from Gawker.
Feelings about Gawker aside, if they had really outed him and caused him damage because of it, he would have sued them for that instead of searching for another case he could latch onto and bankroll.
At the end of the day it's important to let people come out in a way they choose. He may well have already been out to friends and family but that doesn't mean all is done and dusted, especially for a public figure.
I think the truth lies between. "After rumors of Hulk's infidelity, Linda filed for divorce in 2007. At the time it was revealed that Hogan's personal net worth was $30-40 million."
I don't see it hitting $250M.
And I don't see his future retirement income taking a $50M hit because of the video. He's still entitled to royalties and residuals. His multitude of racist remarks, perhaps, however...
Anyways, straight from the horse's mouth: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2043389/Hulk-H...
"Wrestler exaggerates."
From another Hogan lawsuit: "Belzer sued Hogan for $5 million and later settled out of court. On October 20, 2006, on the Bubba the Love Sponge Show, it was claimed (with Hogan in the studio) that the settlement totaled $5 million, half from Hogan and half from Vince McMahon. During his June 23, 2008, appearance on Sirius Satellite Radio's The Howard Stern Show, Belzer suggested that the real settlement amount was actually closer to $400,000."
Regardless of this, the point still stands, Thiel was very much more involved in the Gawker lawsuit than "paying legal costs" and that, regardless of the validity of Hogan's claims, or the trashiness of Gawker, troubles me. "Billionaire bankrolls lawsuit against someone he has a beef with, but could not himself sue, and appears to stage manage case."
And there's a litany of court cases where you can find 'unrealistic damages' due to a jury "sending a message".
1) gawker was trash and probably got what was coming to them. outing someone to get clicks is much more scummy in my opinion than what PT did. the world is a better place now that Gawker is not in it.
2) regarding "legal proxy's acting on someone behest,", I'm not a lawyer but what is the difference between this and HSBS acting as a "proxy" and paying the legal costs of mexican employees (executives actually) [1] who got caught illegal laundry money for the cartels. It is basically the same thing, someone or something with a lot of money throwing around money and affecting legal outcomes (Deferred prosecution agreements)
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-became-ba...
And while I personally found Gawker trashy and not worth a lot of respect, Thiel had profile pictures on open social media accounts of him shirtless on gay cruises. Short of a formal press release saying "I am gay", this wasn't any particular revelation.
(As to the "well, it's still noone's business" - while I agree, the courts have repeatedly held that billionaires are considered "public figures" "by virtue of the undue or oversized influence they wield or are capable of wielding" - so Thiel had little legal claim to his own situation, so used someone else as a proxy for his own grievances).
Not because of the quality/moral fiber (or lack thereof) of their business model.
The damages were then upped to ridiculous amounts. Financial / economic (not emotional) damages were listed at $50M.
Bollea's net worth, at it's peak, was $30-40M (edit: from $25M), and is now estimated at $8M - though most of that has been stripped by divorce, before any of this happened.
I am not sure how someone whose likely career income didn't reach $50M can now, in retirement, state that he suffered $50M in purely economic damages from this (remember, the emotional damage is separate, as is the punitive) - from what? Not from residuals on old WWF repeats - he would still be entitled to these. The occasional celebrity endorsement?
I can't see any realistic justification that his earning power for the rest of his life would total $50M, let alone that $50M only covers the fraction of his income that he _lost_ because of this.