Terry Bollea, the retired pro wrestler known as Hulk Hogan, has been awarded $115m in his invasion of privacy lawsuit against Gawker Media in a verdict that may re-shape how the media covers celebrities in the future.

The six person jury – four women and two men – deliberated for six hours before delivering their verdict to the court in St Petersburg, Florida. Hogan, who was wearing his trademark black bandana, broke down in tears as the verdict was read. His shoulders shook as he sobbed; his hands, wiping tears from his face, were shaking too. The pro-wrestler was comforted by a member of his legal team.

Over a nearly two-week trial, jurors heard how Hogan, 62, had not been contacted by the website Gawker before it posted a nine-second video clip of the wrestler in flagrante with the wife of his friend, DJ Bubba “The Love Sponge” Clem.

Gawker founder Nick Denton seemed resolute in seeking to have the verdict overruled on appeal. “Given key evidence and the most important witness were both improperly withheld from this jury, we all knew the appeals court will need to resolve the case,” he said in a statement.



“I want to thank our lawyers for their outstanding work and am confident that we would have prevailed at trial if we had been allowed to present the full case to the jury,” the statement continued. “That’s why we feel very positive about the appeal that we have already begun preparing, as we expect to win this case ultimately.”

A spokesperson for Hogan’s legal team said: “We’re exceptionally happy with the verdict. We think it represents a statement as to the public’s disgust with the invasion of privacy disguised as journalism. The verdict says no more.”

Even the original $100m demanded in damages by Hogan would have been more money than Gawker Media has on hand, and some have speculated that a big loss in Florida would force them into bankruptcy. There will be a brief second phase of the trial where the court can demand even more money in punitive damages.

Worse, under Florida law, Gawker will almost certainly have to put up the whole amount as bond while awaiting its appeal, though the appellate judge could put a hold on that process while waiting to hear the case.

Partially to bolster itself against this eventuality, in January, Gawker sold a minority stake to Columbus Nova Technology Partners, an investment fund with deep pockets and several billion dollars in assets.

Throughout the trial, Hogan’s lawyers maintained the exposure had caused him suffering. Lawyers for the defendant argue that Hogan was used to publicizing his sexual escapades and it was unclear in which character he was in at the time – Hulk Hogan or Terry Bollea.



Earlier in the day, Bollea listened impassively to closing arguments.

Kenneth Turkel, a lawyer for Hogan, told jurors Gawker editors had not even had the “common decency” to call Hogan for comment before they posted the video.



Turkel walked jurors through Hogan’s case: that his right to privacy was gratuitously compromised by Gawker, that his reputation was materially compromised, and that he suffered emotional distress of “outrageous intensity and duration”.

Turkel accused Gawker founder Nick Denton of “playing God over Bollea’s right to privacy” and offered a meditation on how celebrity affects expectations of privacy.

Denton, Turkel said, had effectively argued that losing privacy is a freeing experience because “you don’t worry about anything else because someone has taken your private life and put it out there”.

The 10-day trial was full of salacious details but the core issue spoke to a serious first amendment issue: did Gawker have the right to post one minute and 41 seconds of the sex tape, approximately nine seconds of which featured actual sexual content?

Hogan’s lawyers said the gratuitous nature of Gawker’s decision exempted the media firm from constitutional protection.

Lawyers for Gawker argued that publication was a legitimate scoop because Hogan had talked openly about his sex life before, including on Howard Stern’s radio show.

The company had warned that if Hogan won the case, the decision could not only destroy the company but cripple press freedom.

But Hogan’s lawyer dismissed that line, arguing that there was only one reason for posting the tape: to build traffic and sell ads after a five-month news “dry spell”.

During the trial, lawyers sparred over the actual value of the post to Gawker, with Hogan’s lawyers estimating the sex tape was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Gawker maintains the post was worth just $11,000.

Gawker obtained the tape without knowing its exact origin. The editor involved said the post was intended as a commentary on celebrity sex tapes.

“What’s disturbing about Gawker is not what they do, but how proud they are of it,” said Hogan’s lawyer Turkel, who said the character of the intrusion was an accurate “reflection of its owner Nick Denton”.