Did Snooki 'Sabotage' A $100-Million Endorsement Deal?
That's one mother of a ball Snooki might've dropped.
Documents obtained by The New York Post suggest the potential $100-million licensing deal the "Jersey Shore" mom-to-be is suing over might've been torpedoed by her own bad behavior, The Huffington Post reports.
The MTV personality legally known as Nicole Polizzi filed her October 2011 suit against SRG Ventures claiming that the $250,000 she earned through licensing rights didn't measure up to the $100 million in earnings she was told she could earn over three years. Not to be out-sued, SRG filed a December counterclaim seeking $7 million in damages the group claimed Snooki caused when her behavior sabotaged more than one possible deal.
Just to play Devil's Advocate and side with SRG a moment, Snooki's filing may have started falling apart right around the time that the "Jersey Shore" cast member claimed that endorsing an alcohol brand would be inappropriate and damaging to her image.
SRG has fired back that Snooki's 2010 disorderly conduct arrest - among other behaviors - made finding brands that would touch her with a 10-foot pole nigh impossible. It's allegedly not like SRG didn't try, either; the group reportedly such prevalent celeb-endorsement partners as Macy's, Target and - couldn't make this up if we tried - Disney to get a piece of Snooki's pie.
"Ms. Polizzi recently filed claims for fraud and breach of contract against SRG," Brian Procel, Snooki's attorney, told HuffPo. "The court papers allege that SRG lied about their connections in the industry and failed to secure licensing agreements in accordance with the parties' written contract. We intend to litigate this case aggressively - SRG's attempt to take advantage of Ms. Polizzi will not be tolerated."
Allow one to give Snooki a modicum of credit: by most public accounts, she's actually been among the "Jersey Shore" cast's most business-savvy members. She's reportedly saved her money well and seems like she's looking toward the show's eventual twilight years and life after.
That being said....who forgot to explain to her how endorsements work? The celebrity that endorses any given brand ties him or herself - whether anybody wants it or not - image, public perception and all to that brand. This is why when someone like Tiger Woods goes absolutely 'nanners on drugs and loose women, mainstream brands with places in family households can't be associated directly or indirectly with antics like that.
This shouldn't require further explanation to her. It doesn't matter if she approves of the editing or not. She's happy to cash the checks MTV's writing to compensate her for being depicted as a drunken simpleton. I refuse to believe Procel, when he read that bit about why she refused the alcohol endorsements, didn't look at her and say, "Really?"
"Ms. Polizzi recently filed claims for fraud and breach of contract against SRG," Snooki's attorney Brian Procel told me. "The court papers allege that SRG lied about their connections in the industry and failed to secure licensing agreements in accordance with the parties' written contract. We intend to litigate this case aggressively -- SRG's attempt to take advantage of Ms. Polizzi will not be tolerated."