Blog« back to blog homeSubscribe to RSS feed
Bryan Sullivan Speaks to The Mirror on Macklemore’s Potential Antitrust Claims Against Robert Kraft
Category: Press | Tuesday, September 22nd, 2026 | Comments Off on Bryan Sullivan Speaks to The Mirror on Macklemore’s Potential Antitrust Claims Against Robert Kraft
Bryan Sullivan was recently quoted in The Mirror discussing the potential legal options available to rapper Macklemore after he was allegedly barred from performing at Gillette Stadium following his appearance on Ed Sheeran’s Loop Tour.
Bryan explains that Robert Kraft could generally decide whether to host Macklemore at Gillette Stadium.
“If one venue owner independently decides not to host a performer, that is generally lawful,” Bryan tells The Mirror. “However, if competing stadium owners collectively agree to deny a performer access to a significant portion of the market, antitrust concerns become more substantial. The analysis would focus on whether there was coordinated action that restrained competition in the market for concert venues or live entertainment services.”
Furthermore, the article explores whether Macklemore could pursue a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on an alleged agreement among competing venue operators.
He shares that the claim could be based on the argument that “the alleged conduct constituted a horizontal agreement among competing venue operators to refuse to deal with a particular artist.”
Bryan goes on to identify the type of evidence that could be significant to such a claim.
“A communication showing an agreement or ultimatum among competing venue operators would be highly significant,” he explains, adding that an “email, text message, meeting note, or witness testimony” showing that multiple stadium owners agreed to collectively refuse to host Macklemore or pressure a tour to remove him “would dramatically strengthen an antitrust case.”
“Conversely, evidence showing that each venue independently evaluated and rejected the booking for its own reasons would substantially weaken such a claim,” Bryan concludes.
Read the full article in The Mirror.
Bryan Sullivan Discusses Legal Considerations for Macklemore’s Team in Light of Ed Sheeran Tour Controversy with NBC News
Category: News, Press | Wednesday, September 16th, 2026 | Comments Off on Bryan Sullivan Discusses Legal Considerations for Macklemore’s Team in Light of Ed Sheeran Tour Controversy with NBC News
Bryan Sullivan recently spoke with NBC News about the potential legal challenges Macklemore and his team could face if they pursue legal action following his removal from Ed Sheeran’s tour. The article, titled “Ed Sheeran addresses Macklemore’s tour exit amid Robert Kraft boycott claims,” examines the decision to remove Macklemore from Sheeran’s stadium tour, as well as the subsequent reactions and legal considerations encompassing the event.
On September 14, 2026, Macklemore was removed as opener from Sheeran’s tour, just ten days after joining on September 4, 2026. During one of his first and only performances as an opener at MetLife Stadium, Macklemore shouted “Free Palestine” while performing on stage.
According to Macklemore, following the performance, New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft contacted Sheeran and threatened to cancel the show if Macklemore remained in the lineup, citing his “recent actions,” and further alleged that Kraft contacted other stadiums to issue similar ultimatums. Sheeran responded to these allegations, stating he spoke with Robert Kraft in an attempt to find a resolution; however, Macklemore’s contract was with the promoter, who ultimately decided to remove him from the show.
It has not yet been confirmed whether Macklemore intends to pursue legal action. Speaking with NBC News, Bryan highlights several legal considerations that may create challenges if his team ultimately decides to take legal action, specifically, promoters’ broad discretion to terminate acts in touring contracts.
Bryan goes on to note another central aspect: broadly worded “behavior clauses.” He explains to NBC News that these clauses can restrict artists from engaging in behavior that promoters could interpret as controversial or damaging to their reputation.
Read the full article in NBC News.
Bryan Sullivan Speaks to The Los Angeles Times About the Possibility of Trump Taking Retaliatory Actions Through DOJ in Fox-Roku deal
Category: News, Press | Thursday, September 10th, 2026 | Comments Off on Bryan Sullivan Speaks to The Los Angeles Times About the Possibility of Trump Taking Retaliatory Actions Through DOJ in Fox-Roku deal
Bryan Sullivan recently spoke with The Los Angeles Times about the Fox Corporation’s proposed acquisition of Roku, a San Jose-based streaming service, following the DOJ’s request for additional information as it reviews the details of the merger.
The article, titled “DOJ seeks more information on $22 billion Roku deal after Trump blasts ouster of Fox News host,” outlines the timeline of the merger, announced in June, that hit a snag this week. The requests follow Fox’s dismissal of long-time anchor Maria Bartiromo and President Trump’s public disapproval of the decision.
The president has been known to take action against networks that say or do things he disagrees with, signalling this merger may be in for additional scrutiny by his DOJ. This could be standard, however, as a second request for information was also made when reviewing Paramount Skydance’s deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery.
Bryan tells the LA Times that he believes Trump’s unpredictable nature makes the outcome nearly impossible to predict.
“You never know what Trump is going to seize on and decide he wants to do,” Bryan shares. “It’s chaos in the federal government and it could very well happen because of that reason, but it could also just be a blip and not a big deal.”
Read the full article in The Los Angeles Times.
Early Sullivan Emerges Victorious in New Mexico on a Case with National Significance for Sexual Abuse Survivors
Category: News, Results, Results | Wednesday, September 2nd, 2026 | Comments Off on Early Sullivan Emerges Victorious in New Mexico on a Case with National Significance for Sexual Abuse Survivors
Devin McRae and Peter Scott prevailed in the New Mexico Court of Appeals on behalf of a sexually abused plaintiff against several defendants including the local and national Boys & Girls Clubs organizations.
Early Sullivan represented its client in one of 13 cases brought by different firms and plaintiffs against the Boys & Girls Clubs organizations for sexual abuse spanning nearly a decade.
While the other plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the Boys & Girls Clubs of America national organization after settling with the local organization, Early Sullivan continued undaunted on behalf of its client. The national organization then filed three summary adjudication motions targeting the Firm’s client’s claims, arguing the national organization could not be held responsible for the conduct of the local Boys & Girls Club.
The New Mexico trial court granted all three summary adjudication motions against the Firm’s client, adhering to the standard reasoning applied in Catholic Church and Boy Scouts of America precedents; namely that national bodies do not maintain adequate control over local chapters or individual perpetrators of abuse.
Upon appeal, and as explained in the opinion, the Firm successfully demonstrated that the national entity imposes extensive membership mandates on local affiliates including (1) directly influencing their funding, (2) requiring regular financial and operational reports, (3) requiring mandatory activity updates, and (4) requiring prominent branding with the Boys & Girls Club of America, Inc.’s logo across all facilities and materials.
The New Mexico Court of Appeals found that Early Sullivan sufficiently distinguished its case from the Catholic Church and Boy Scouts of America lines of cases and, therefore, sufficient evidence of control by the national organization was presented to take the case to a jury.
This decision carries national importance for sexual abuse survivors. Rather than restricting claims to local entities that often lack adequate resources to fully compensate victims, it establishes a framework for holding parent organizations accountable. The published decision is entitled, John Doe 13 v. Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Inc., Boys & Girls Clubs of Central New Mexico, Dominic Yannoni, and David Michaelback.
12 Early Sullivan Attorneys Named to “Best Lawyers in America”; Five Named to “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch”
Category: Awards, News | Thursday, August 20th, 2026 | Comments Off on 12 Early Sullivan Attorneys Named to “Best Lawyers in America”; Five Named to “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch”
Early Sullivan attorneys Eric Altoon, Lisa Boswell, Eric Early, David Giannotti, Scott Gizer, Jeremy Gray, Devin McRae, Diane Myint Luczon, Christopher Ritter, Peter Scott, Bryan Sullivan, and Lisa Zepeda have been recognized among the top lawyers in the nation in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America, one of the oldest and most distinguished guides to the legal profession.
The following attorneys earned a coveted spot in the 2027 edition for their work in the following practice areas:
– Eric Altoon: Real Estate Law
– Lisa L. Boswell: Commercial Litigation; Litigation – Intellectual Property
– Eric Early: Commercial Litigation; Entertainment Law – Motion Pictures and Television; Entertainment Law – Music
– David A. Giannotti: Environmental Law; Litigation – Environmental
– Scott E. Gizer: Commercial Litigation
– Jeremy Gray: Commercial Litigation
– Devin A. McRae: Entertainment Law – Motion Pictures and Television
– Diane Myint Luczon: Commercial Litigation
– Christopher I. Ritter: Entertainment Law – Motion Pictures and Television
– Peter D. Scott: Commercial Litigation
– Bryan M. Sullivan: Commercial Transactions / UCC Law; Entertainment Law – Motion Pictures and Television; Entertainment Law – Music
– Lisa Zepeda: Commercial Litigation; Entertainment Law – Motion Pictures and Television
Additionally, five Early Sullivan attorneys were named to Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch. This list recognizes younger attorneys who have achieved outstanding professional excellence. The following attorneys earned a spot in the 2027 edition.
– Rebecca L. Claudat: Litigation – Labor and Employment
– Jessica Detering: Commercial Litigation
– Zachary C. Hansen: Commercial Litigation; Litigation – Labor and Employment
– Brett G. Moore: Commercial Litigation; Litigation – Real Estate; Real Estate Law; Transportation Law
– Padideh Zargari: Commercial Litigation; Labor and Employment Law – Management; Litigation – Real Estate; Real Estate Law
Best Lawyers is one of the oldest and most respected guides to the legal industry. The selection process is based on a comprehensive peer-review process designed to capture the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within common legal practices and geographical areas. Corporate Counsel magazine has called The Best Lawyers in America “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.”
Bryan Sullivan Discusses the Likelihood of a Lawsuit Concerning Nancy Guthrie’s Kidnapping
Category: News, Press | Tuesday, August 11th, 2026 | Comments Off on Bryan Sullivan Discusses the Likelihood of a Lawsuit Concerning Nancy Guthrie’s Kidnapping
Bryan Sullivan recently spoke with The Hollywood Reporter about the likelihood of a successful lawsuit if Nancy Guthrie’s family decides to pursue legal action against law enforcement over numerous unresolved questions and potential missteps in her kidnapping investigation. The article “Does Guthrie Family Have Grounds to Sue Pima County Over Alleged Investigation Missteps?” outlines the probability of a successful lawsuit through an examination of the case thus far.
On February 1, 2026, Nancy Guthrie, mother of The Today Show co-anchor Savannah Guthrie, was taken from her Tucson home. Upon her kidnapping, the Guthrie family operated closely with federal and state law enforcement, publicly appreciating their investigative measures. Nancy Guthrie is now pronounced dead, and over the past six months, law enforcement has failed to uncover a suspect or a serious person of interest. While many believe the Guthries only want their mother’s remains returned to them, the Wall Street Journal’s recently published article showcased the shortcomings of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, prompting many to question whether the family might sue.
Bryan shares that he believes a theoretical lawsuit’s success is “highly unlikely.” He continues on to emphasize the difficulty in bringing cases against law enforcement.
“It’s very, very difficult to sue law enforcement for failing to investigate, or basic negligence,” he tells The Hollywood Reporter.
The article also addresses the ransom notes assumed to be from Nancy’s kidnapper, which included a Bitcoin demand and deadlines for more considerable payouts. Typically, law enforcement is against paying out ransom, leaving many to wonder whether the Guthries were advised not to pay.
Bryan illustrates how this aspect would affect a potential lawsuit, highlighting that in a court of law, it would not satisfy a burden of fault if the Guthries were advised not to pay. He explains that in a case such as this one, law enforcement is equipped with “qualified immunity” as long as they were “acting in good faith.”
“The police are exercising their best judgment,” Bryan concludes. “Sometimes they’re wrong.”
Read the full article in The Hollywood Reporter.
Bryan Sullivan Joins Schwab Network to Answer Key Questions Regarding Paramount Skydance’s Proposed Acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery
Category: News, Press | Monday, August 10th, 2026 | Comments Off on Bryan Sullivan Joins Schwab Network to Answer Key Questions Regarding Paramount Skydance’s Proposed Acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery
Bryan Sullivan recently joined Schwab Network to discuss the challenges and uncertainties encountering Paramount Skydance’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery as legal battles continue to advance. In the segment entitled “PSKY-WBD Merger ‘Could Be Dragged Out a Year,’’ Bryan examines the central components of this merger and the aspects he feels ultimately define it.
While the merger cleared federal regulators, numerous state attorneys general requested a trial, now slated for mid-2027. With the trial and possibility of appeals, Bryan shares that the merger may not be completed for over a year. He also notes the key differences in the current case compared to the previous study conducted by federal regulators, emphasizing the focus is on “competition, prices for consumers, and content, and its litigation under the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.”
Bryan illustrates a key attribute to this case: market definition. Paramount’s definition includes what Bryan describes as “anything that touches entertainment,” and therefore incorporates streaming services, gaming services, and more.
“The state attorneys general are defining the market very narrowly to cable distribution and theatrical distribution, whereas Paramount is defining it as the entire entertainment industry,” he explains to Schwab Network.
Another key aspect of the merger is the difficulty to prove traditional media companies operate in a separate market. Bryan shares there are strong arguments present as the number of studios that produce theatrical releases and own cable networks is small.
“This case is really going to be defined by expert testimony using what’s called the HHI calculations,” he shares. “They’ll figure out what the market share is and then the court is going to have to determine whether they’ll have to use the narrow definition of market or the broader definition of market.”
He continues to delve into the compelling argument that the greater scale is necessary for media companies to compete with tech giants and remain competitive. Bryan adds that companies like Apple and Amazon generate billions of dollars in revenue from non-entertainment products and services.
“Paramount and Warner Bros.’s only revenue source is entertainment content,” he tells Schwab Network. “They are competing on streaming with a company that can put a billion dollars into production and not miss a beat.”
Data findings and analysis will also be very important in evaluating the merger. Bryan points to a case he considers particularly important: Disney’s acquisition of 20th Century Fox. At the time, it was said it would increase content and lower prices for consumers. However, Bryan notes he does not believe this has happened and instead has seen more layoffs.
As the trial approaches, Bryan recommends for individuals to evaluate the respective party’s filed expert reports, which will come out well before trial, and “really analyze the economies of this deal” and “the broader implications on the entertainment industry.”
To conclude the segment, he emphasizes that the midterm election results will be significant.
“If democrats take control during the midterms as predicted, then Congress could also get involved in examining the merger as well,” he highlights. “What we’ve seen happening at CBS News with reporters leaving because of what they have said was ‘pressure to support the administration rather than be critical of it,’ and that goes into the acquisition of Warner Brothers by Paramount, which then CNN would be under the umbrella of Paramount.”
Watch the full segment on the Schwab Network.
Bryan Sullivan Speaks to Fast Company About Fauci’s COVID-19 Diary Entries Stored on Government Servers
Category: News, Press | Friday, August 7th, 2026 | Comments Off on Bryan Sullivan Speaks to Fast Company About Fauci’s COVID-19 Diary Entries Stored on Government Servers
Bryan Sullivan recently spoke to Fast Company about Anthony Fauci’s public COVID-era diary entries stored on government servers. In the article, titled “What Fauci’s diary leak should remind employees about privacy at work,” Bryan examines legal considerations for employees storing personal information on company servers while providing best practices on protecting private data.
As the article outlines, Republican Senator Rand Paul has consistently and publicly criticized Fauci’s management of the COVID-19 pandemic and his statements concerning the virus’s true origin. While Fauci left his government position in 2022, Paul remained committed to investigating the origins of COVID-19 and Fauci’s use of taxpayer funding for research. A central piece of Paul’s argument is over 1,000 pages of Fauci’s journal entries from the pandemic, which Paul has since released because the entries were on government property.
Bryan examines the relationship between personal information and company devices, illustrating a “universal rule” that “employees have no right of privacy.”
“If you’re going to keep anything personal, you don’t keep it on a work computer, a work system, or a work device in any way,” he tells Fast Company. “The company or the employer owns that, whether it’s the U.S. government or not. You have no privacy when it comes to using work technology.”
Bryan continues to highlight that the legal landscape becomes less clear when an employee uses a personal device for work, or when an employer pays for an employee’s phone service but not the device itself.
“The bottom line is, if you’re using your personal device for work, to the extent that it overlaps, your work will have a right to inspect that device,” he explains.
Bryan also provides practical advice for employees, urging them to review their company’s employee handbook and carry a separate phone for work. He underlines that these handbooks generally contain technology policies, notably whether employees have consented to the company’s right to search their work devices and/or if the company has a provision allowing employers to inspect personal devices used for work.
“Most people don’t even think about it or bat an eye,” Bryan adds. “They’ll save stuff in their own personal folder on their work computers, and use their work email for personal stuff just because it’s there and it’s easier. So, my guess is, [Fauci] probably didn’t even think about this,” he concludes.
Read the full article in Fast Company (subscription required).
Bryan Sullivan Weighs in on the Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s $150 Million Lawsuit in TheWrap
Category: News, Press | Thursday, July 30th, 2026 | Comments Off on Bryan Sullivan Weighs in on the Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s $150 Million Lawsuit in TheWrap
Bryan Sullivan recently spoke to TheWrap about the Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s new federal lawsuit against Jay Penske, Penske Media Corporation, the Golden Globe Foundation, and Golden Globe Foundation CEO Gregory Goeckner, which alleges the 2023 sale of the Golden Globes was tainted by fraud and anticompetitive conduct.
The article, titled “HFPA Sues Penske Over ‘Fraudulent’ Golden Globes Takeover, Shaking Up Awards Landscape,” explains that the HFPA contends that Penske’s media empire gives it immense influence over the Hollywood awards universe. HFPA asserts this results in monopolistic control over three key entertainment-industry markets: Hollywood trades, awards and advertising markets. The complaint seeks $150 million in damages and asks the court to void HFPA’s dissolution.
The Hollywood Foreign Press Association dissolved in 2023 after corruption, lack of diversity, and ethical lapses among its members was exposed in a two-part Los Angeles Times report. After the release of this report, Hollywood turned against the Globes.
Bryan tells TheWrap that while the allegations fall under antitrust law, he believes the HFPA will be facing an uphill battle.
“HFPA alleges the 2023 sale was tainted by fraud, conflicts of interest and exclusionary conduct designed to eliminate independent press oversight, which does fit into antitrust law if the allegations are proven true,” he explains. “However, the HFPA appears to have a very difficult case because courts may view the organization’s past scandals and its own vote to restructure as undermining its claims, and they waited a few years after government approval of the deal.”
Read the full article in TheWrap (Subscription required).
Bryan Sullivan Discusses the Attendance of Epstein Survivors at Todd Blanche’s Attorney General Confirmation Hearing in The Guardian
Category: News, Press | Monday, July 27th, 2026 | Comments Off on Bryan Sullivan Discusses the Attendance of Epstein Survivors at Todd Blanche’s Attorney General Confirmation Hearing in The Guardian
Bryan Sullivan recently spoke with The Guardian about Todd Blanche’s attorney general confirmation hearing in light of Jeffrey Epstein survivors in attendance expressing concerns about his mishandling of the case. The article outlines the potential roadblocks survivors may face in their pursuit of justice under a Department of Justice led by Blanche.
While Blanche reportedly led the disclosure of documents as required by the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, the disclosure of survivors’ names, photos, and identifying information was explicitly shared, while the names of the accused abusers and enablers remain anonymous. Bryan tells The Guardian that he believes a Blanche confirmation would mean “more suppression and no active investigations” into Epstein’s sex trafficking.
“I think it’s because that’s what Trump wants. He wants this to go away,” he explains. “And that’s one of the reasons he fired [former attorney general Pam] Bondi, because she didn’t make it go away, in my opinion.”
Despite concerns that a Blanche-led DOJ could significantly hinder progress towards justice, Bryan cautions that other avenues for survivors to pursue legal action will also present an uphill battle.
“You could bombard them with [public records] requests, and then file a lawsuit for them not providing responses to the Foia [Freedom of Information Act] requests, but that alone is a long process,” he continues. “Bluntly, the problem with all of this is [that] all of it takes time. Courts are grossly underfunded [and] understaffed. It will take quite a while to go through that sort of legal process,” he concludes.