## Facts

- C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc. (CBC) operated fantasy baseball games that allowed participants to draft real Major League Baseball (MLB) players and compete based on those players’ real-world performance statistics; users paid entry and transaction fees.
- CBC’s products used MLB players’ names and publicly available performance and biographical information.
- From 1995 through 2004, CBC licensed from the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) rights to use players’ names and related information; the last agreement expired after the 2004 season.
- After the license expired, the MLBPA granted Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P. (Advanced Media) an essentially exclusive license to use players’ names and performance information for, among other things, fantasy games.
- CBC continued operating without a new license and sought declaratory relief that its use did not infringe any rights held by Advanced Media or the players.
- Advanced Media asserted right-of-publicity claims based on players’ identities; the MLBPA asserted breach-of-contract claims tied to restrictions in the prior license.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Missouri law, CBC’s use of MLB players’ names and information in fantasy baseball products violated the players’ rights of publicity, and if so whether the First Amendment barred liability.
2. Whether “no-use” and “no-challenge” provisions in the 2002 license agreement barred CBC’s conduct or claims, and whether those provisions were enforceable.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for CBC.
- The court held that CBC’s use fell within Missouri’s right of publicity as a profit-motivated use of players’ identities, but that the First Amendment outweighed the state-law publicity claim on these facts.
- The court concluded that CBC could use publicly available player names and statistics in its fantasy games without a license because the use was protected expression and did not imply player endorsement.
- On contract claims, the court rejected the district court’s specific reasoning as to one contractual provision but held the challenged restrictions unenforceable under the agreement’s warranty-of-title provision.
- A partial dissent would have enforced the contract restrictions more strictly.

## Legal Principles

- Missouri’s right of publicity can cover for-profit uses of a person’s identity, including use of names and performance information in commercial products.
- The First Amendment can bar right-of-publicity liability where the challenged use is expressive and involves matters of public interest, including entertainment content.
- Publicly available facts (such as athlete names, biographical data, and performance statistics) receive strong First Amendment protection when used as the informational basis for expressive products.
- Right-of-publicity claims are weaker where the use does not suggest the individual’s endorsement of the product.
- Contractual restraints that purport to grant or guarantee exclusive control over uses protected by the First Amendment may be unenforceable under warranty-of-title principles.

## Conclusion

The court held that fantasy baseball products may use MLB player names and publicly available statistics without a license because, even if state publicity rights are implicated, the First Amendment protects the dissemination and use of such sports information, and the asserted contract restrictions could not be enforced to secure exclusive control over that protected use.


C.B.C. Distrib. & Mktg., Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., 505 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2007)