Sony suing Bridgestone over Kevin Butler's Wii-related commercial?

Things are getting really weird with Bridgestone's recent Wii-related commercial. It all started when Kevin Butler was spotted in the company's "Game On" promotion featuring the Wii. It didn't take long for an updated TV spot to be released, this time featuring a new actor.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
zdkapl1480d ago

That would be both funny and awful if this is actually happening.

guitarded771480d ago

It broke my heart when I saw the commercial on TV. I was like "KB sold out" :(, then I was like "Damn you Sony, why didn't y'all keep KB"!

knowyourstuff1480d ago

Lawyers are to blame for crap like this. Sony thinks they can trademark Lambert's likeness as "Kevin Butler", which is nonsense since it would prevent him from working for anyone else. Sony can't do that unless there is a non-compete clause in Lambert's contract.

Sony has also been doing huge cutbacks to remain profitable. Lets just say Kevin got a pay cut and he quit, while Sony's executives running the company into the floor are getting bonused all day long.

Nimblest-Assassin1480d ago

Well this is happening, and honestly, Sony should cancel this lawsuit, because it is ridiculous

They own the character "Kevin Butler" not the man Jerry Lambert

He can act in whatever he wants to act in... Sony doesn't own him, unless this commercial is a breech of terms with Jerry

All in all, this is a stupid ass decision from sony


Those are the actual documents, proving this is a real thing

alien6261480d ago

its more of he could work for bridgestone but Jerry Lambert is still under contract with sony in which he cant be promoting other systems other than sony. Bridgestone is the fault for not thinking that. BTW people dont get mad they not suing Jerry Lambert(Kevin Butler) they are suing Bridgestone.

Blankman851480d ago

Actually they are suing Bridgestone and Wildcat Creek Inc, which happens to be presidented(is that a word?) by Jerry Lambert.

-Alpha1480d ago


Not sure if this is true, but:

" Not only are they suing Bridgestone for the commercial, they're also suing Wildcat Creek, Inc.

Who are they? Well, evidently they're the advertising company hired by Bridgestone for the commercial. According to this their president is none other than Jerry Lambert."

From the Neogaf thread

nukeitall1480d ago


"Sony can't do that unless there is a non-compete clause in Lambert's contract."

None compete clauses are often impossible to enforce, due to it in fact bars people from using their trade to earn money.

By the way, that is a good thing!

MAJ0R1480d ago

inb4 Sony gets hacked again

BrianC62341480d ago

"Lawyers are to blame for crap like this. Sony thinks they can trademark Lambert's likeness as "Kevin Butler", which is nonsense since it would prevent him from working for anyone else. Sony can't do that unless there is a non-compete clause in Lambert's contract."

I never saw the commercial. Did he use the Kevin Butler name and dress like him? If so I'm sure Sony would have a reason for suing. He'd have to at least not pretend to be the same character.

Cupid_Viper_31480d ago

Wow, the amount of people talking about things that they don't understand here is staggering.

Guys....when an actor signs a commercial contract to represent a certain company, there is always a clause that states that said actor CANNOT EVER feature in any commercial work representing a competitor, it is a breach of contract.

Lebron is under Contract with Nike, hence can never appear in a commercial for Adidas, or Reebok, or Under Armour. Same thing for Messi as he is under contract with Adidas, therefore cannot feature in Nike commercials even though Barcelona, the club he plays for is sponsored by Nike. Any breach of those contract term is subject to legal action.

The purpose of commercials in the first place is build a certain perception, and actors/mascots are spokesperson for those companies. that's why they put these actors under a contract, meaning that you get paid specifically not to work for the competitor.

A company cannot afford to be publicly sponsoring you, and have you as a downloadable character in one their biggest franchises, while you're also pushing commercials for their direct competitor........I don't a single company that would allow that. And as much as I like Lambert, as an actor, he would be well aware of that, and as the president of marketing company, he would know that all too well.

Sony is going to have to cut ties with him, meaning that all their future plans to use him as Kevin Butler are now washed up, meaning an entire marketing strategy and investment has been foiled.......Cmon now, get real, What Lambert did was amateurish and unprofessional,and he breached his contract, period.

ScubbaSteve1480d ago


After reading through most of these comments I'm glad to see someone who actually understands what's going on. When this commercial came out I knew there would be a legal action coming and when Bridgestone suddenly edited out KB it was pretty much confirmed that this was going to happen.

I'm not sure if it's just people trolling because it's Sony or they really don't understand how the world works. I'd honestly be surprised if this weren't a shoe-in case for Sony and I suspect we'll hear about a settlement in a few months.

Legion1480d ago (Edited 1480d ago )


The only issue here is they are not suing the actor who might be in breach of contract. They are suing the companies that utilized him. And regardless of who is President... they can't sue the company for using him... they can only confront the actor if he is in breach.

TheRealSpy1480d ago

kevin butler was never funny. it takes a certain level of desperation to think he did sony a favor with his marketing. it's just childish "humor" that idiots respond to. you can put that stupidity anywhere and there will be a moronic audience for it.

pixelsword1480d ago (Edited 1480d ago )

I don't know all of the names, but it could be that he is under a contract which may have prevented him from promoting any other console, videogame, or device. The only way Sony could sue Bridgestone is that they have a contract which supports the above statement.

Prince was under something similar, as he could not use the name given to him by his parents unless he was with Time/Warner; so it's not a stretch to think something like this exists out there.

@ therealspy;

Your presence here either undermines your hypothesis or supports it.

I'm saying support. ;D

MariaHelFutura1480d ago


Well, he could always go back to killing babies on scare tactics.

Reibooi1480d ago (Edited 1480d ago )

There are a few reasons Sony could be suing and be within their right and not be bullying in the process.

Firstly is if he signed a non-compete clause. This would basically not allow him to work on anything for a certain period of time in advertising or not work on anything that was gaming related. It all depends on the contract he had signed with Sony.

2nd Sony could be suing because they believe Bridestone was leading people to believe he was still portraying the Kevin Butler character.

This has happened before mind you in a different business. During the Monday night wars of the late 90's the WWF sued the WCW when Razor Ramon(Scott Hall) went to WCW because when he went he played the same character and while they never said his name they clearly hinted at who he was and that he was portraying a character the WWF had Trademarked. As a matter of a fact one of the first things he said was "You know who I am but you don't know why I'm here" Implying he was their as the Razor Ramon character which was against his contract.

Something similar could be happening here with the Sony law suit but until more info comes out there is no reason to be throwing hate in every possible direction.

Kevin ButIer1479d ago

*looks awesome in white coat*

Pekka1479d ago

@Cupid_Viper_3: Even contracts aren't forever and actor can also decide to leave whenever contract is being negotiated. They can't force him to continue and contract is void after he leaves and he can work for their worst competitors. Of course, character of Kevin Butler is owned by Sony but not Lambert if he isn't on their paylist. Even Messi could change from Adidas to Nike if Adidas decides his contract is too expensive or Messi decides to change sides when contracts are negotiated. His contract doesn't last forever but could last for several years.

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 1479d ago
StraightPath1480d ago

Sony jus another jealous evil organisation. How is fanboys justify this? I remember the hate apple got for sueing samsung sony are no better then apple. The jus want money n be dominatr

Nimblest-Assassin1480d ago

Is your keyboard broken, or are you unable to spell?

I honestly can't take you seriously like this

SilentNegotiator1480d ago (Edited 1480d ago )

If he signed a non-compete, it's cut-and-dry. Sony isn't "evil" if they want Jerry to complete his contract by not promoting other systems.

No need to call every lawsuit 'frivolous'. No one seems to REALLY know any details here anyway.

soljah1480d ago

here is one of the problems with lambert. sony is still actively promoting kb in its products

and its a karting game lust like the mario kart game lambert was promoting in the commericial

jadenkorri1480d ago

Kevin Butler aka Jerry Lambert, will unfortunately no longer be doing Sony/playstation commercials, sad really, I always enjoyed them. But I'm gonna call it now, MS will pick him up and do a commercial for "said game" for the 360/720. Cause we all know MS loves copying Sony, plus the amount of media frenzy it will gain will be huge advertisement.

TheRealSpy1480d ago

this is just an example of a sony troll trying to paint an image of anyone who sees sony for the money grubbing corporation that they are. if you think this guy is trying to make a real point, you are an idiot.

he's trolling on behalf of sony fanboys everywhere. that's all it is. nobody is this stupid.

CalvinKlein1480d ago

sony is poor and getting sue happy because they are desperate for money.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1480d ago
nerdkiller1480d ago

i hope this is fake, not right that sony wants copy rights to a human-being who needs to eat. im sure there not upset with them selves after pswiimotes and smash bros. battle royal

BrianC62341480d ago

He can do his job, just not pretend to be a character Sony owns.

nerdkiller1480d ago (Edited 1480d ago )


lets think for a sec,so you're tellin me a he shouldn't do commercial that involves video games becuase he used to do sony ones, then i guess ppl who work for pepsi can't drink coke.

if no names weren't involved then its a free country he can do what ever job comes his way, he needs to eat u know.

( l thought this was AMERICA ) south park:

CalvinKlein1480d ago

ahah shouldnt they sue kevin buttnerd instead?

jd6661479d ago

What's your obsession with butts? Oh sorry you can't reply can you as you've run out of bubbles!!! HAHAHA

SPAM-FRITTER-1231479d ago (Edited 1479d ago )

Sony suing Bridgestone.....LOL

I suppose every penny counts when you're on your way to bankruptcy.

I thought Apple suing Samsung was bad till i saw this.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1479d ago
360ICE1480d ago

All this relentless suing...
Well, well, it sure beats threatening as Bill Maher would have said. I think...

Carl_Shocker1480d ago

I wouldn't be surprized, Sony created Kevin Butler out of Jerry Lambert...for him to use his Kevin Butler persona promoting a Nintendo product was a lawsuit waiting to happen.

I mean if I had created something like Kevin Butler for my company I wouldn't like rival companies using it....nobody would.

I know Jerry Lambert is an actor but he could of made a new character for it.

shackdaddy1480d ago (Edited 1480d ago )

But they didn't use Kevin Butler...

Carl_Shocker1480d ago

Yeah but they gave off that impression that they did, wigs, make up, haristyles, something which wouldn't make people go

"Hey it's Kevin Butler"

Even though it's not, to most gamers who havent heard of Jerry Lambert they would still relate him to Kevin Butler.

shackdaddy1480d ago (Edited 1480d ago )

That's really stupid. He's an actor. What do you want him to do, wear a mask?

And furthermore. Kevin Butler was a CEO in a dress shirt and tie. In the Bridgestone commercial Lambert was a scientist/tester wearing lab clothes. That should be a big enough difference to tell the two characters apart. People just say he's the Kevin Butler guy because that was his most popular role.

killerhog1480d ago

I agree shackdaddy, most people didn't even notice, till an article here brought it up.


Sony didnt really change the actor appearance all that much from what he looks like real life. This is a dumb lawsuit if true.

Lord_Sloth1480d ago

He's an actor under contract to promote SONY! He's allowed to act as long as he isn't promoting Sony's competition. It's business. At least they aren't suing over something as stupid as rounded edges, which nobody seemed to complain about. But it's cool to hate on Sony. Doesn't seem to be cool to hate on Apple even if they are dumb!

Jazz41081480d ago (Edited 1480d ago )

Did sony also sue that movie he was just in as well. Sony is being very stupid in the sense and seem desperate now to get some free money with no merit for it.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1480d ago
admiralvic1480d ago

You know what I find funny? I remember seeing COUNTLESS KB commercials during primetime tv and my sitcoms I watch when im not gaming or have too little time to start anything. However, I've only seem this bridgestone commercial ONCE outside of seeing it on N4G a while back. Why is this important? Because they're clearly marketing COMPLETELY different demographics (or I just got insanely lucky, but lets assume it's the demo). This means even if Lambert was acting or even looking like Butler, 90%+ of the people that saw the ad wouldn't have made the connection or even know who / what Kevin Butler is.

GarandShooter1480d ago

I disagree. This is clearly not marketing to a different demographic. The only gamers this ad is not aimed at are those that are too young to drive. I've seen the Bridgestone/Lambert commercials during NFL broadcasts. So let's tie this all together.

One of the most iconic things at outdoor sports events for decades was none other than the Goodyear blimp. Yes, another tire manufacturer.

Tire commercials, and general auto related commercials are plentiful during sports broadcasts. Saw some just last night during TBS's coverge of the ALDS and NLDS.

Bridgestone plays heavily to that with their 'made a football, hockey puck, etc. from our tire compound' whimsical commercials. If I'm not mistaken, they were first aired during the Superbowl.

Millions of sports games licensed from the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, FIFA, etc. are sold to gamers every year, indicating many gamers are sports fans and many sports fans are gamers.

Why would Bridgestone and Nintendo run an ad that was aimed at drivers/gamers during a broadcast that didn't appeal to them? They wouldn't.

Sorry admiralvic, I think your 90%+ is way off the mark.

Knight_Crawler1480d ago

@Carl - Are you seriously trying to justify this? I understand if Jerry has some agreement in his contract that states that he can not appear in any other game related product as long as he is under contract with Sony...which if this is the case Sony should have just sent a warning later to Bridgestone asking them to pull the commercial or else which they did pull the commercial and replaced it very fast but for Sony to try and get money out of this makes them look just as bad as Apple for suing someone for using a shape.

Also they did not use KB in the commercial they used Jerry Lambert and he never spoke and was not even the main person in the commercial.

Sony messes up on this and they are also suing Lamberts advertising company which is sad because I really like him as a person.

wastedcells1480d ago

It's so easy to see who the trolls are around here, every sony article the same people are there to troll it up a little bit. Then you see the same people on xbox articles saying they love this and love that.

zgoldenlionz1480d ago

Soon as commercial aired damage was done. If lambert can't promote Sonys competitors he shouldn't have done the commercial. Plain and simple.

Bridgestone should have known this I'm sure they have tons of lawyers.

GarandShooter1480d ago

Are you aware that lawsuits can be filed to show the seriousness/willingness to involve the legal system of the plaintiff? That far more are filed than actually go to trial? That not all settlements involve the defendant paying the plaintiff?

Do you know Jerry personally? I would think that would be required to like him as a person.

SonyNGP1480d ago incredibly dumb if it's true.

Frankfurt1480d ago

It's Sony, what did you expect?

Nimblest-Assassin1480d ago (Edited 1480d ago )

Reads comment

See's frankfurt

Expected as much... did sony do something to you as a child.. because your spite towards them is abnormal, even beyond fanboy terms


No seriously, I think Frankfurt has a problem. Usually fanboys act like this to spite people on relevant articles... frankfurt does this in almost every comment he makes, iregardless of the content of the article

I honestly think

A) Sony did something to him as a child
B) He works for microsoft based on his article posts and his comments
C) He is a new breed of fanboy that we have not seen before... and it scares me

Outside_ofthe_Box1480d ago (Edited 1480d ago )

I can tell you what I didn't expect... I didn't expect them to sue.

I did expect a comment like that from you however... lol.


lol, he's just one of those people that takes everything that they hate/like way too seriously, crossing all sorts of boundaries/lines..

majiebeast1480d ago

Show me on the doll where Sony touched you.

wastedcells1480d ago

What's funny is the Sony trolls on N4G have no problem calling out trolls on Xbox articles. You don't have to be here long to see who they are.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1480d ago
prototypeknuckles1480d ago

LMFAO really? I mean I can see the problem but REALLY?