Michael Kassan Sues Attorney Bryan Freedman for Defamation in Connection with UTA Split

The latest twist in the battle between UTA and former MediaLink chairman-CEO Michael Kassan is a defamation lawsuit filed by Kassan against UTA attorney Bryan Freedman.

Kassan has Freedman for slander and libel stemming from a statement that the lawyer made earlier this week to Deadline, which is a sibling publication to Variety under Penske Media Corp. Kassan and UTA parted ways earlier this month amid a flurry of litigation and arbitration filings and heated accusations from both sides. Kassan’s suit against Freedman centers on the lawyer’s statement to Deadline that “Michael Kassan is a pathological liar,” which was published March 25.

“The complaint represents Michael Kassan’s intention to hold Mr. Freedman responsible for his strategically malicious and defamatory comment,” said Kassan attorney Sanford Michelman in a statement. “To render a statement such as he did, illustrates the fact that all Mr Freedman and UTA are doing are trying to block Mr. Kassan from competing by hurting him in the press as alleged in Mr. Kassan’s demand to arbitrate.”

In its claims against Kassan, UTA has asserted that the longtime advertising industry executive was profligate in his spending and misused company funds for his personal expenses. Kassan has accused UTA of violating agreements put in place when the talent agency acquired MediaLink for $125 million in late 2021. Kassan’s suit against Freedman seeks $125 million in damages.

“This statement was made as if it was relaying a fact,” the suit states. “This statement by Freedman was malicious and intentional. Stated another way, a non-compete by defamation. Freedman did not just say this to a few people, he said it to countless people via Deadline article so he could inflict maximum damage. Freedman is not just a sophisticated lawyer and knew what he was doing was illegal but has also been a party to litigation in the past and understands what this strategy could do to a person’s reputation. Freedman broke the law by defaming Kassan, and as an agent of his clients, so too did they.”

Kassan’s suit asserts that Freedman made the comment in order to hurt Kassan’s chances of launching a new venture. The sides have been in disupte as to whether Kassan was offered a $10 million severance package with a noncompete clause. Kassan maintains it was offered but he turned it down; UTA maintains that no such offer was made.

“UTA has done everything in its power to attempt to destroy Kassan with the hope that while UTA does not have a contractual non-compete, it could create a non-compete by defamation,” Kassan’s suit said. “Meaning, if UTA could destroy Kassan’s reputation, employees and clients would not follow him to his next venture, thereby creating a form of a non-compete by defaming him.”