What Is the Jack Nicklaus Lawsuit?
The Jack Nicklaus lawsuit is a Florida defamation case in which golf champion Jack Nicklaus sued Nicklaus Companies, LLC and two of its executives, and won a $50 million jury verdict against the company on October 20, 2025. Nicklaus filed it in April 2023 in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, and Judge Reid P. Scott II presided over the trial.
Nicklaus alleged that the company and its officers spread false statements that he had secretly negotiated to lead the Saudi-backed LIV Golf league and that he was mentally unfit to manage his own affairs. The jury found the company liable but did not find executives Howard Milstein and Andrew O'Brien personally liable.
The lawsuit is a single-plaintiff civil case, not a class action and not multidistrict litigation, so nobody else can join it. Searchers often mean a second, separate case, the New York contract dispute over Nicklaus's name, image and likeness, which the comparison section below explains.
“In 2023, Nicklaus brought this lawsuit for defamation against appellants. Nicklaus’s amended complaint alleged the Company knew that the LIV Golf allegations were made with the intention of damaging his public reputation and were demonstrably untrue.”
Source: Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, Milstein v. Nicklaus, No. 4D2024-3188, Opinion (June 4, 2025)
Why Was the Jack Nicklaus Lawsuit Filed?
The Jack Nicklaus lawsuit was filed because Nicklaus says Nicklaus Companies and its executives told the press and company clients that he had secretly negotiated a $750 million deal to join LIV Golf and that dementia left him unable to manage his affairs. Nicklaus denies both claims and says they were false.
The dispute began with a 2021 meeting. According to the Fourth District's summary of the complaint, a company officer asked Nicklaus to meet Golf Saudi representatives about designing a golf course, and Golf Saudi was also building the league now known as LIV Golf. Nicklaus says he declined a leadership role in the new league because the PGA Tour was an important part of his legacy, and that the company had no part in that decision.
The first statements at issue appeared in the company's initial New York complaint, which said the company had "saved Mr. Nicklaus from himself." The Fourth District noted that the company later removed those allegations from the complaint. Nicklaus says the account was then repeated to national media outlets, including USA Today and Sports Illustrated, according to a law firm summary of his complaint.
Nicklaus Companies disputes that account. Its lawyers argued at trial that the case was a business dispute, and that Nicklaus, as a public figure, had to prove actual malice, meaning the company knew a statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth.
What Harms Does the Jack Nicklaus Lawsuit Allege?
The Jack Nicklaus lawsuit alleges three distinct harms, all drawn from the same set of statements rather than from separate events. They are Nicklaus's allegations, and Nicklaus Companies disputes them and challenged the verdict that found it responsible.
LIV Golf Deal Statements
A false statement of fact, in a defamation claim, is an assertion about a person that can be proven untrue, as opposed to an opinion.
Nicklaus alleges the company falsely said he had pursued or agreed to a leadership role with LIV Golf worth as much as $750 million. His lawyer told jurors in closing arguments that the story was a lie meant to make the public see Nicklaus as an older golfer who had sold out to Saudi-backed interests.
Judge Scott wrote in his summary judgment order that Nicklaus had submitted evidence from which a jury could find the statements false, because he was not involved in negotiations to become a LIV Golf ambassador.
Dementia Statements
Dementia is a medical term for a decline in memory and thinking that interferes with daily life.
Nicklaus alleges that Andrew O'Brien suggested to company clients that age had "resulted in dementia" and that Nicklaus needed "his car keys taken away." Sportico reported that these remarks were a core part of his claim.
The company called the dementia allegation "pure fiction" and said no one testified that O'Brien made such a statement. It said the car keys remark was an analogy about the company's frustration with Nicklaus's dealings with the Saudi league. The jury did not find O'Brien personally liable.
Reputational and Professional Injury
Reputational injury is damage to how a person is regarded by the public or within their profession.
The verdict turned on whether the company actively participated in publishing false statements of fact that exposed Nicklaus to "ridicule, hatred, mistrust, distrust or contempt," according to the Associated Press. The Palm Beach County jury answered yes for the company and no for Milstein and O'Brien individually.
Golf Digest reported that uncertainty over who controlled the Nicklaus name had hurt his golf course design business. Defense lawyers argued at trial that no harm was done to his reputation.
What Is the Current Status of the Jack Nicklaus Lawsuit?
The current status of the Jack Nicklaus lawsuit is resolved. The parties settled in March 2026 as part of a Delaware bankruptcy sale, and Golf Digest described the four-year dispute between Nicklaus and Howard Milstein as over.
Three proceedings were involved, each with its own court and docket, and the entries below keep them separate.
Nicklaus v. Nicklaus Companies, LLC, Milstein and O'Brien
Nicklaus sued the company and two executives for defamation in Palm Beach County. Judge Scott denied the defendants' motion to stay or dismiss, and on June 4, 2025 the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the claims did not "arise from" or "relate to" the LLC agreement's New York forum clause, so the case stayed in Florida.
| Court | Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida (state trial court) |
| Case number | 502023CA009653 |
| Presiding judge | Reid P. Scott II |
| Filed | April 21, 2023 |
| Defendants | Nicklaus Companies, LLC; Howard P. Milstein; Andrew W. O'Brien |
| Appeal | Fourth DCA No. 4D2024-3188, order affirmed June 4, 2025, Judge Spencer D. Levine writing |
| Trial result | Jury found the company liable and cleared Milstein and O'Brien personally |
| Nicklaus's counsel | Eugene Stearns, Stearns Weaver Miller |
| Defense counsel on appeal | Constantine Cannon LLP; Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. |
| Resolution | Ended by the March 2026 global settlement |
The six-person jury deliberated about four and a half hours before returning its verdict. Nicklaus Companies said after the verdict that it disputed the decision and would review all avenues for an appeal, and the later settlement resolved the judgment.
Nicklaus Companies, LLC v. GBI Investors, Inc. and Jack W. Nicklaus
Nicklaus Companies sued Nicklaus and his former company GBI Investors, Inc. in New York in 2022, after his employment ended and he began offering golf course design services. In March 2025, Justice Joel M. Cohen granted summary judgment for Nicklaus, concluding that GBI could not give the company exclusive control of Nicklaus's own name, image and likeness against him, while the company kept the trademarks it bought in 2007.
| Court | Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Commercial Division Part 03M |
| Index number | 656284/2022 |
| Presiding judge | Joel M. Cohen |
| Claims | Contract claims under the 2007 purchase and sale agreement, LLC agreement and non-competition agreement, including use of Nicklaus's name, image and likeness |
| Summary judgment | Granted for Nicklaus and GBI in March 2025 |
| Fee award | June 20, 2025: $3,133,951.00 in attorneys' fees and $180,575.36 in costs to the defendants |
| Status | Marked disposed in the June 2025 order; a Milstein spokesperson said he would appeal, and the sources reviewed do not report the outcome |
The fee order granted the defendants' request in part, cutting the requested amount in half because the purchase and sale agreement did not support fee shifting for the claims brought under it.
Nicklaus Companies Chapter 11 sale to 20 Majors
Nicklaus Companies and affiliated entities filed for Chapter 11 protection in Delaware one month after the verdict. The case ended in a sale of substantially all of the company's assets to a Nicklaus-led group and a global settlement of the disputes between the parties.
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware |
| Filed | November 21, 2025 |
| Presiding judge | Craig T. Goldblatt |
| Buyer | 20 Majors, LLC, led by Jack Nicklaus, TWG Global and Nicklaus Brown |
| Price | $35.7 million |
| Approval hearing | March 9, 2026 |
| Closing | Announced March 26, 2026 |
| Settlement terms reported | Parties agreed to end litigation among themselves; Nicklaus reportedly gave up collecting the $50 million judgment and was to receive $1.2 million at closing |
The filing date comes from an industry summary of the petition, and the settlement terms come from press and law-firm summaries of the hearing, since the full agreement was not reviewed.
How Much Did Jack Nicklaus Win in the Lawsuit?
Jack Nicklaus did win a $50 million jury award against Nicklaus Companies in the lawsuit, but Golf Digest reported that he agreed to give up trying to collect the judgment as part of a March 2026 settlement.
The $50 million figure is the jury's award against the company alone, not an amount any court ordered Milstein or O'Brien to pay. The settlement terms come from press and law-firm summaries, and the full agreement was not reviewed.
Collecting the award was uncertain because the company filed for Chapter 11 a month after the verdict. An industry summary of the filing reports estimated assets of $10 million to $50 million against liabilities of $500 million to $1 billion.
Under the settlement, 20 Majors, LLC bought the businesses for $35.7 million, Nicklaus was reported to receive $1.2 million at closing, and Milstein was reported to waive a significant part of his prepetition claims. Nicklaus said afterward that he did the case "more for my family than for me."
Jack Nicklaus Lawsuit Updates
Here are the latest Jack Nicklaus lawsuit updates, covering new court filings, rulings, and case-count reports as they're confirmed. The Nicklaus v. Nicklaus Companies defamation case settled as of November 2026; the terms and timing are covered in the entries below. The full timeline below covers every verified development since the first case was filed.
Jack Nicklaus Lawsuit Timeline of Events
20 Majors Completes Purchase of the Nicklaus Companies Businesses
20 Majors, LLC announced on March 26, 2026 that it had completed its acquisition of the Nicklaus Companies businesses, reuniting Jack Nicklaus with the Golden Bear marks and bringing his design projects under Nicklaus Design. Nicklaus Companies separately said the sale also resolved litigation between Nicklaus and its prepetition investor, PMP Nick LLC.
Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Approves the $35.7 Million Sale
Judge Craig T. Goldblatt of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware approved the $35.7 million sale of Nicklaus Companies to 20 Majors, LLC at a March 9, 2026 hearing. Nicklaus's attorney G. David Dean said the sale ended four years of litigation between Nicklaus and Howard Milstein.
Nicklaus Companies Files for Chapter 11 in Delaware
Nicklaus Companies and affiliated entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the District of Delaware on November 21, 2025, a month after the jury verdict. The company said it disputed the jury's decision and would pursue its options on appeal.
Palm Beach County Jury Awards Nicklaus $50 Million
A six-person Palm Beach County jury found on October 20, 2025 that Nicklaus Companies had actively participated in publishing false statements about Jack Nicklaus, and it awarded him $50 million in damages. Jurors did not find Howard Milstein or Andrew O'Brien personally liable.
New York Court Awards Nicklaus Over $3 Million in Fees and Costs
Justice Joel M. Cohen of New York Supreme Court ruled on June 20, 2025 that Jack Nicklaus and GBI Investors were entitled to $3,133,951.00 in attorneys' fees and $180,575.36 in costs as prevailing parties. The order cut the $6,267,902 fee request and $361,150.72 cost request by half.
Fourth District Keeps the Defamation Case in Florida
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed on June 4, 2025 the trial court's denial of Nicklaus Companies' motion to dismiss the defamation suit under the LLC agreement's New York forum clause. Judge Spencer D. Levine wrote that the claims did not arise from or relate to that agreement.
New York Judge Rules Nicklaus Controls His Own Name and Likeness
Justice Joel M. Cohen of New York Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Jack Nicklaus and GBI Investors in March 2025 on the contract claims brought by Nicklaus Companies. The ruling left Nicklaus free to use his own name, image and likeness for golf course design, while the company kept the trademarks it bought in 2007.
Florida Arbitrator Rules Nicklaus Is Free to Compete
A Florida arbitrator ruled in 2024 that Jack Nicklaus was free to compete with the company that bears his name, including by designing golf courses and soliciting its customers, according to Golfweek. The arbitration arose under his employment agreement.
Nicklaus Files the Florida Defamation Suit
Jack Nicklaus filed his defamation complaint against Nicklaus Companies, Howard Milstein and Andrew O'Brien in Palm Beach County Circuit Court on April 21, 2023, under case number 2023CA009653. The complaint centered on statements about LIV Golf and his mental fitness.
Nicklaus Companies Sues Nicklaus in New York
Nicklaus Companies sued Jack Nicklaus and GBI Investors, Inc. in New York in 2022, shortly after Nicklaus resigned from the company's board in May 2022 and started a Florida arbitration. Its initial complaint contained the LIV Golf statements that Nicklaus later cited in his defamation case.
Nicklaus Meets Golf Saudi Representatives
Jack Nicklaus met Golf Saudi representatives in 2021 about designing a golf course in Saudi Arabia, according to his complaint as summarized by the Fourth District. He says he declined a leadership role in the new league that became LIV Golf.
Nicklaus Sells His Business Interests for $145 Million
Jack Nicklaus's company GBI Investors, Inc. agreed in 2007 to sell assets, including rights to use his name and likeness for commercial purposes, to the newly formed Nicklaus Companies for $145 million. Four agreements signed at the same time, including an LLC agreement and a non-competition agreement, shaped both later lawsuits.
What Evidence Was at Issue in the Jack Nicklaus Lawsuit?
The evidence at issue in the Jack Nicklaus lawsuit centers on what the company and its officers said and whether those statements were false, not on whether they were said at all. The company's own New York complaint supplied the first statements, and Nicklaus says the same account was later repeated to reporters and company clients.
Nicklaus also relies on how the Golf Saudi meetings came about. His complaint says the meetings were scheduled by the company's executive vice president of business development, not by Nicklaus, which he argues undercuts the claim that he secretly sought a LIV Golf role.
Because Nicklaus is a public figure, Florida law required him to show actual malice. A law firm summary of the verdict says the jury found the company acted with actual malice. The company argued that Nicklaus's dealings with Saudi officials were more involved than it knew, a position the verdict against the company did not accept.
How Did Nicklaus Companies, Howard Milstein and Andrew O'Brien Respond to the Jack Nicklaus Lawsuit?
Nicklaus Companies, Howard Milstein and Andrew O'Brien responded to the Jack Nicklaus lawsuit by denying that anyone defamed Nicklaus and by calling it a business dispute. Defense lawyers told jurors that no harm was done to his reputation and that a company sharing his name had no reason to attack him. A company spokesperson said the New York complaint was never given to any reporter.
The company also argued that some of its statements were truthful and necessary, and it pointed to a pretrial ruling that denied Nicklaus punitive damages. The jury still ruled against the company, though it cleared both executives.
| Defendant | Role | Jury outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Nicklaus Companies, LLC | Company that owned the Nicklaus brands and filed the New York complaint | Found liable for actively participating in publishing false statements |
| Howard P. Milstein | Executive chairman, who bought Nicklaus's business interests in 2007 | Not found personally liable |
| Andrew W. O'Brien | Executive vice chairman | Not found personally liable |
The company's liability was the only basis for the $50 million award, so Milstein and O'Brien were not ordered to pay anything personally.
How Does the Jack Nicklaus Lawsuit Compare to the New York Nicklaus Companies Case?
The Jack Nicklaus lawsuit is a separate case from the New York Nicklaus Companies case, although both grew out of the same 2007 business deal. In 2007, Nicklaus's company GBI Investors, Inc. agreed to sell assets, including rights to his name and likeness, to the company for $145 million, and Nicklaus signed employment and non-competition agreements at the same time.
The New York case asked who controls Nicklaus's name, image and likeness, and it was decided largely for Nicklaus on summary judgment in 2025. The Florida case asked whether the company defamed him, and a jury decided it. A third proceeding, the Delaware bankruptcy, is covered under case status above.
| Proceeding | Forum | Core question | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nicklaus v. Nicklaus Companies (this page) | Palm Beach County Circuit Court, Florida | Did the company and its officers defame Nicklaus? | Jury found the company liable; executives cleared |
| Nicklaus Companies v. GBI Investors (separate) | New York Supreme Court, Commercial Division | Who controls Nicklaus's name, image and likeness and design work? | Summary judgment largely for Nicklaus in March 2025 |
| Employment arbitration (separate) | Private arbitration in Florida | Could Nicklaus compete after his restrictive covenant ended? | Arbitrator ruled for Nicklaus in 2024, per Golfweek |
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Jack Nicklaus lawsuit about?
The Jack Nicklaus lawsuit is a Florida defamation case in which Nicklaus alleged that Nicklaus Companies and two executives falsely said he negotiated a $750 million LIV Golf deal and had dementia. A Palm Beach County jury found the company liable on October 20, 2025 and awarded $50 million, and it did not find the two executives personally liable.
Is the Jack Nicklaus lawsuit a class action?
No. The Jack Nicklaus lawsuit is a single-plaintiff civil case, and it is neither a class action nor multidistrict litigation. Nobody else can join it or file a claim.
Did Jack Nicklaus win the lawsuit?
Jack Nicklaus did win the lawsuit at trial, because the Palm Beach County jury ruled against Nicklaus Companies and awarded him $50 million. The jury did not find Howard Milstein or Andrew O'Brien personally liable, and the dispute later ended in a March 2026 settlement tied to a bankruptcy sale.
Did Jack Nicklaus get the $50 million?
Golf Digest reported that Jack Nicklaus agreed to give up trying to collect the $50 million judgment as part of the March 2026 settlement. In the same deal, 20 Majors, LLC, the group led by Nicklaus, TWG Global and Nicklaus Brown, bought the Nicklaus Companies businesses for $35.7 million.
Who owns the Jack Nicklaus brand now?
20 Majors, LLC owns the Jack Nicklaus and Golden Bear brands after closing its purchase of the Nicklaus Companies businesses in March 2026. The investment group is led by Nicklaus, TWG Global and Nicklaus Brown.
Is the New York Nicklaus Companies case the same as the Jack Nicklaus lawsuit?
The New York Nicklaus Companies case is not the same as the Jack Nicklaus lawsuit. The New York case is a contract dispute over Nicklaus's name, image and likeness that Justice Joel Cohen largely decided for Nicklaus in 2025, while the Jack Nicklaus lawsuit is the Florida defamation case.