EUR 150,000 for breach of Max’s portrait right – expensive joke or not?

On 6 September 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam had already held that Picnic using a Max Verstappen lookalike in an amusing freeriding clip just couldn't pass go. The court offered Max the chance to substantiate his losses, which Picnic would have to pay. On 25 April 2018, the District Court of Amsterdam presented the bill: Picnic had to pay Max EUR 150,000. Max had initially asked for EUR 350,000 in compensation and – of course – tried to stand his ground in these proceedings for a high figure. There were two reports form marketing experts, mentioning figures of EUR 600,000 and EUR 250,000. Evidence was also given of a EUR 100,000 payment for Max appearing at a (small-scale) company opening ceremony. Max also pointed out that even though Picnic itself only published the clip for a short time, it then went viral. In the light of all this, Max felt on further reflection that compensation of EUR 400,000 would be appropriate. Picnic objected to this, tooth and claw: the method of assessing compensation was incorrect from a technical legal perspective; the reports from the marketing experts were disputed with Picnic's own expert statement; Picnic referred to an article in Metro where Max's annual earnings for appearing in Jumbo adverts were estimated at EUR 300,000.

The court threw this all into the mix, weighed it up and set Max's loss at EUR 150,000. The interesting legal point is that, when assessing the losses, the court did not hold Picnic responsible for the fact that the clip went viral – without actually wasting much breath on the issue. 

So – EUR 150,000 – an expensive joke? Not when you think how much free media attention Picnic has received from the clip and the furore it caused. Picnic would have spent a sight more if it had had to buy in the advertising time for the publicity it's enjoyed.

Daniël Haije