Brewer Firm Announces that Virginia Supreme Court Sides with NRA in High-Stakes Contract Dispute, Rejects Expansion of State Contract Law
May 30, 2025 – New York, New York… In a widely watched contract clash, the Supreme Court of Virginia has delivered a decisive victory for the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) in its dispute with Under Wild Skies, Inc. (UWS).
UWS was the producer of the hunting show Under Wild Skies, which the NRA sponsored for over two decades. The dispute arose after UWS claimed NRA repudiated the contracts and sued for over $20 million. The ruling cements the NRA’s trial win over UWS and affirms longstanding principles of contractual interpretation in the Commonwealth.
The case centered around a failed television sponsorship relationship between the NRA and UWS, which for 26 years produced a hunting-focused show under the same name.
UWS alleged that the NRA’s 2019 request for business information about the success of the show – amidst an internal compliance review (and its subsequent delay in making a scheduled payment) – constituted an anticipatory breach of their agreement. UWS attempted to bolster its case by urging the trial court to instruct the jury on the “doctrine of adequate assurance,” which allows a party to demand confirmation of performance if they suspect the other side might default.
In a decision dated May 29, 2025, the trial court rejected the instruction, the Court of Appeals upheld that decision, and the Supreme Court now affirmed it – definitively stating that the doctrine of adequate assurance is not recognized under Virginia common law. The high court emphasized that the doctrine – originally rooted in the Uniform Commercial Code and later extended in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts – represents a “modern innovation” not adopted by Virginia courts or legislators for general contract disputes.
Writing for the Court, Justice Cleo E. Powell declared that any expansion of Virginia’s contract doctrine is a matter for the legislature not the judiciary. “The decision to adopt a new doctrine applicable to all contractual disputes is a policy decision that is more appropriately left to the legislature,” she wrote.
The ruling has broader implications beyond this case, reaffirming that Virginia courts will not judicially adopt evolving doctrines from other jurisdictions without express legislative direction. It also protects entities like the NRA from facing new legal standards retroactively applied in civil litigation.
“We are pleased the Court affirmed the outcome below,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at the Brewer firm, which represented the NRA in this matter and others through fall 2024.
Last year, the NRA prevailed at trial in a “dissolution lawsuit” brought by the New York Attorney General, and secured a unanimous, 9-0 decision before the U.S. Supreme Court in one of the most closely watched First Amendment cases in the country.
The Court’s refusal to expand the law ensures that contractual obligations in Virginia will continue to be interpreted under traditional principles of clear repudiation and actual breach.
Joining Brewer in representing the NRA were firm partner William A. Brewer IV and Robert H. Cox of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP in Virginia.
New York Law Journal / Albany Times Union Report on Lawsuit Against Former NRA President Oliver North
May 21, 2025 — The New York Law Journal and Albany Times Union report that Brewer client Thomas King, president of the NRA Foundation, has filed a countersuit against former NRA Board President Oliver North. The suit "cites New York’s anti-SLAPP statute that protects New Yorkers from frivolous lawsuits meant to silence whistleblowers."
Filed in the state Supreme Court of Rensselaer County on May 19, 2025, King's lawsuit says he reported "allegations of serious ethics violations by North through the NRA's confidential internal disciplinary process," the Law Journal reports.
”Our client believes Col. North's action in Virginia is a clear abuse of our judicial process — a classic SLAPP lawsuit filed to punish Mr. King for exercising protected rights,” said Svetlana Eisenberg, partner at Brewer and counsel to King. “Thomas King's actions were entirely lawful, rooted in responsible governance and accountability. The lawsuit aims to demonstrate that attempts to suppress whistleblowers through retaliatory litigation violate New York law and threaten the essential principles of transparency and integrity within nonprofit organizations."
To read the Albany Times Union article, click here.
To read the New York Law Journal article, click here.
Actress Cindy Latch Battles Unauthorized Image Exploitation in Florida Lawsuit
Latch Seeks to Protect Her Brand After Years of Misappropriation by Biote-Affiliated Clinics
April 4, 2025 – Cindy Latch, a commercial actress and TV host, has filed a lawsuit and request for temporary injunction alleging that 19 Florida-based medical clinics unlawfully exploited her image and likeness for commercial gain — years after her consent was withdrawn.
In a story that highlights the increasingly urgent battle over image rights in the digital age, Latch asserts that her likeness was used without permission to promote Biote medical products and services. Biote is a leading hormone therapy company for whom Latch worked as a commercial actress.
Despite a strict contractual agreement dating back to 2015 limiting usage rights to paid terms, the complaint reveals numerous Biote-affiliated providers continued to use her image well beyond the expiration of her contract in February 2021.
Filed on April 2, 2025, in the 13th Judicial Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, near Tampa Bay, Florida, Latch’s complaint outlines a pattern of persistent infringement even after repeated demands to cease use, a court-issued temporary restraining order, and a temporary injunction issued by the 101st District Court of Dallas County.
As of today, at least 7 of the named clinics allegedly continue to display Latch’s likeness across their websites, social media platforms, and promotional videos – all for the benefit of their commercial interests.
“These defendants were told to stop, ordered to stop, and yet they continued to use our client's image,” said William A. Brewer III, founding partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and lead counsel for Ms. Latch. “Our client believes that this is a textbook example of commercial misappropriation. These clinics and Biote capitalized on Ms. Latch’s brand equity and image to attract business while ignoring the law.”
At the heart of the dispute is Latch’s former collaboration with Biote Medical LLC. Under a series of "Image Usage Contracts," Biote had the right to use Latch’s promotional materials — but only so long as payments were timely and consent remained valid. According to the complaint, those contracts explicitly required that affiliates remove all content 30 days after payment stopped or authorization ended.
The lawsuit says that when Latch withdrew her consent in 2021 and Biote’s license expired, many affiliated providers ignored the termination and continued using her image. Despite receiving written instructions from Biote in September 2021 to remove the content — and a court-ordered injunction in December 2024 — numerous providers allegedly continued to refuse to comply. Latch filed suit against Biote Medical LLC in November 2024.
The most recent complaint cites violations of Florida’s unauthorized publication of name or likeness statute, common law invasion of privacy by misappropriation, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. Latch seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and punitive damages.
The clinics named in the suit span the state from Fort Lauderdale to Jacksonville to Sarasota and include some still actively using her image for their own profit on social media. Most only ceased after legal action was initiated.
“This isn’t just about me. It’s about drawing a clear line,” says Latch. “Professionals deserve control over how their image is used. If companies can ignore contracts and court orders without consequence, then no one’s brand is safe.”
Law360: Author Gregg Jarrett Sues Over Alleged Theft of Trump Book Idea
April 1, 2025 — Law360 reports that Brewer client and Fox News contributor Gregg Jarrett has filed a lawsuit in New York state court against Simon & Schuster and his literary agency, Vigliano Associates. Jarrett alleges that the publisher and agency conspired to steal his idea for a book centered on the legal battles facing Donald Trump, a concept he pitched in early 2023.
According to the complaint, after Jarrett declined a low advance offer for the project, his former research assistant, Alex Marlow, was instead chosen to write the book. Now titled Breaking the Law, Marlow's book is slated for release in June.
"This case is about betrayal at the highest levels of publishing — where those entrusted to champion Mr. Jarrett's work instead allegedly conspired to exploit his ideas, misappropriate his opportunity, and enrich themselves at his expense," said Jarrett's attorney, William Brewer III of Brewer Attorneys & Counselors.
Politico Playbook: Brewer Client Gregg Jarrett Sues Simon & Schuster, Vigliano Associates
April 1, 2025 — Politico reports on a lawsuit by Brewer client Gregg Jarrett, a Fox News legal analyst, against Simon & Schuster. Jarrett contends that the publishing house stole his book project about "lawfare" against Donald Trump — and gave it to Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow.
In addition to Simon & Schuster, the suit singles out David Vigliano, Jarrett's former literary agent, who Politico notes also reps Marlow.
“This case is about betrayal at the highest levels of publishing — where those entrusted to champion Mr. Jarrett’s work instead allegedly conspired to exploit his ideas, misappropriate his opportunity and enrich themselves at his expense,” Jarrett lawyer William A. Brewer III, a partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, said in a statement to Playbook.
San Francisco Business Times: Meta Sued to Address Threats on Facebook
February 25, 2025 – The San Francisco Business Times reported today on a lawsuit by Brewer client Wymara Resort & Villas against Meta Platforms Inc. “to enforce its own content moderation policies after repeated threatening posts directed at employees.”
According to the article, “The complaint, filed Monday [February 24, 2025] in San Mateo County Superior Court, states Meta ignored repeated reports made through the platform and a formal letter to its Menlo Park headquarters alerting them to posts that directed abuse and violence at specific hotel employees. It’s one of the first lawsuits since Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced sweeping changes to the platform and company that included loosening moderation policies against hateful speech, which legal experts expect will lead to more lawsuits stemming from defamation and targeted harassment on the platform.”
The Wymara Resort & Villas is a luxury resort located in the Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean.
“As its employees are subjected to harassment and threatened with violence, our client requested that Facebook comply with its obligation to uphold the platform’s community and professional standards,” said William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel to plaintiff Wymara Ltd. “Facebook sits idly by as its platform is weaponized and used to incite violence.”
As reported, “Wymara Ltd. is suing on the basis of breach of written contract — Facebook’s own terms of service — breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief. The hotel seeks monetary damages and a judicial order compelling Meta to remove the specified posts compiled and attached to the lawsuit.”
Read the article here.
A New Year, A New Chapter: Brewer Firm Concludes Landmark Representation of the National Rifle Association
December 24, 2024 – This holiday season, as we reflect on past accomplishments and look forward to the many opportunities we will pursue in 2025, we wish to congratulate the National Rifle Association on its successful and determined efforts to protect its independence against existential threats, immense odds, and unprecedented government lawfare.
When the Firm began its work for the NRA in 2018, the nation’s oldest civil rights organization faced a barrage of regulatory investigations, sweeping congressional inquiries, and a debanking campaign. Politicians gloated about plans to force the NRA out of existence, target its donors, and silence its defense of freedom.
With resolve befitting its mission, the NRA stood and fought.
Six years later, the NRA still stands – and so do the freedoms for which it has long fought. The Firm is proud it represented the NRA in its blockbuster 9-0 Supreme Court victory, its defeat of the NYAG’s “corporate death penalty” and compliance-monitor claims, its separation from corrupt vendors, and dozens of other matters.
The greatest reward of this work arrives now: with major litigation threats defeated, the Firm’s work is nearly done. We wish the Association a joyous holiday, a bright new year, and another century of successful constitutional advocacy.
Having won these wars, the NRA can now go forth and “win the peace.” We look forward to watching, and wish the Association well.
ABA Journal Reports on NRA, Brewer Representation
December 17, 2024 – ABA Journal reports that the National Rifle Association (NRA) will reform its governance following a civil lawsuit that originally sought to dissolve the organization.
Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors, which had represented the NRA since 2018, said in a statement that the judgment “is tailored to compliance and governance measures in the NRA’s interest—many proposed by the NRA itself and several of which were already underway at the association.”
Judge Joel Cohen approved the judgment on December 11. The reforms include increasing leadership transparency and changing how NRA board elections are conducted.
As reported, the Brewer firm added that efforts to obtain a “corporate death penalty” and court-appointed monitor to oversee the NRA were defeated. “The NRA pays no fines or penalties under today’s judgment. Instead, the judgment entitles the NRA to collect millions of dollars from two former executives found to have breached their duties,” the statement said. “In sum, following over a month of trial proceedings, Justice Joel Cohen denied all invasive relief sought by the government.”
Read more here.