Try our new beta!Click here
Submitted by yewles1 1217d ago | news

Sony reckons Kevin Butler was in tyre ad, Bridgestone reckons he wasn't

Bridgestone has issued a response to Sony's lawsuit claim, stating that Jerry Lambert was in no way possible portraying the Kevin Butler character in the alleged commercial.

Sony has meanwhile claimed that Jerry Lambert's appearance is part of what makes the Kevin Butler character, and are thus making that the main basis of their complaints. (Kevin Butler, PS3, Sony)

mafiahajeri  +   1217d ago
This has got to be the funniest lawsuit ever. Stupid move from bridgestone and Kevin butler himself. They were asking for a lawsuit...
#1 (Edited 1217d ago ) | Agree(15) | Disagree(39) | Report | Reply
cl1983  +   1217d ago
The Keven Butler character is Jerry Lambert in a suit. In Bridgestones commercial he is Jerry Lambert in a lab coat. Now with out reading the contract the question comes down to when Jerry could start shooting with other game systems,
matgrowcott  +   1217d ago
It's not even a question though. Whether the contract is valid or not, it's up for a judge to decide whether Bridgestone (and Nintendo) have benefited from a character created by Sony.

If Sony can prove damages to their brand, it's an open and shut case. And given that around the web people were saying "hey look, Kevin Butler advertising Nintendo," it shouldn't be that hard to prove.
vega275  +   1217d ago
sony's contract with Jerry Lambert ended at the end of august 2012. the bridgestone commercial with him playing the wii started in september three days after his contract ended.

"was entered into on 7th August 2009 and contained an exclusivity clause that prevented Lambert from working for PlayStation competitors, such as Nintendo. The contract expired at the end of August 2012. The Bridgestone ads appeared on TV three days later"

sony's just acting like a jilted lover who has been dumped by their girl and found out she's dating someone else days later. it's just pathetic on sony's part
cl1983  +   1217d ago
Sony could only copy right Keven Butler as a vp of sony, not Jerry Lambert natural looks.

Its just like everyone knows Fonzie from Happy Days, that doesn't stop Henry Winkler from still being an actor.
matgrowcott  +   1217d ago

Nobody is talking about copyrighting anything. What I'm saying is, Sony could easily say that Nintendo (through Bridgestone) is trying to cash in on the goodwill/publicity that Sony has built (which is what they ARE saying) and that Jerry Lambert was accomplice to that.

All it would take is for a judge to rule that the above was their intention - and given Lambert's popularity as Kevin Butler, it's not going to be hard for their lawyers to build a case.

It's nothing like Henry Winkler. It WOULD be like Henry Winkler if a company put millions of dollars into turning him into a icon for a certain product or brand and then another company used Henry Winkler in advertising a rival product.


Sony isn't a person, it's a company and it's going to react if it has been screwed over. Using your own analogy though, this situation is more like maxing your credit cards trying to impress a girl and then finding out she's gone and used the dresses and jewellery you bought to impress your sports team rival. Wouldn't you want a little of that cash back?
cl1983  +   1217d ago
quoting from article Sony, citing a breach in US trademark law, reckons the ad "depicts a Bridgestone employee who consumers reasonably perceive to be Kevin Butler

Sony can only trade mark the character not Jerry's normal appearance ie Face and normal body size.
vega275  +   1217d ago
@ matgrowcott
I've never said sony is a person. I said they are "ACTING" like a jilted lover.

"this situation is more like maxing your credit cards trying to impress a girl and then finding out she's gone and used the dresses and jewellery you bought to impress your sports team rival"

that's not the case at all. because nintendo didn't hire jerry lambert to promote the wii. jerry contract was up at the end of august. so he was free to do whatever he wanted.this will in no way hurt sony. because it's sells wasn't dependant on kevin butler or wasn't purchased because he was their in no way is sony screwed over. since their business isn't hurting because of this.

so as you put it. sony maxed out their credit card buying sexy outfits only to findout that after the breakup she's wearing it for someone else. sorry buddy but you can't get anything back from that. if that was the case, I'm sure every man could get back everything he spend on a past relationship.
#1.1.6 (Edited 1217d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(5) | Report
sikbeta  +   1217d ago

Lambert was making ads for Bridgestone long ago, this suit is going because Bridgestone had a WII in their ad with Lambert, but Sony doesn't own Lambert's face.
matgrowcott  +   1217d ago

Exactly. Sony are saying that Nintendo (through Bridgestone) are using the goodwill and publicity of the Kevin Butler character to advertise a rival product. It doesn't matter if the contract is up, that's just not on legally.

It has nothing to do with Lambert's likeness per se, but to do with what that likeness currently means. If you want proof that people think of him as Kevin Butler, you only need to see the articles when the video was aired. That alone proves Sony's point.

(Note: it'd still be a trademark issue even if Sony aren't strictly using his likeness as a trademark)


His contract has nothing to do with it and if that's the defence Lambert/Bridgestone are using - they're going down in this case. He's played an iconic character that represents a brand, and if anybody really thinks that's going to go away after three days of being out of contract, they just have no chance.

There are people that simply don't realize that Jerry Lambert is a person. He's Kevin Butler. And to see Kevin Butler advertising a Nintendo product is confusing a brand. That might not out and out hurt Sony, but it certainly undermines years of advertisement.

At best, this isn't a very bright thing for any of the involved parties to do. At worst, this was a specific move by somebody to get a bit of cheap publicity by using the Kevin Butler actor in advertising a rival product. Either way, whatever you might think of it, there's no way Sony is going to lose this. All the articles and comments saying "Kevin Butler advertising Nintendo?!" prove that the suit is valid.


No, but they have the legal right to sue if they feel their money and hard work is being used to promote a rival brand, and it's fair to say that that's how it turned out (no matter what the original intentions).

@The Inevitable Disagrees

So let's say Major Nelson leaves Microsoft and starts using his website to promote Sony games. Microsoft has the right to sue, because the website came to get a following thanks to their promotion and support.

Jerry Lambert was a figurehead for the PlayStation brand, and to then advertise a Nintendo product despite people knowing him as that PlayStation figurehead was ill-advised.
#1.1.8 (Edited 1217d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(14) | Report
dennett316  +   1217d ago
The second his contract was up, he was free to work wherever he pleases. That he is recognized as Kevin Butler is no consequence, that is a character he played, he is not that character for the rest of his life.

By your logic, Hugh Laurie is now unable to act again because he's firmly recognised as Gregory House and that hurts the owners of the House brand despite him now being out of contract. It's nonsense, absolute nonsense. He is an actor, and Sony have no right to dictate where and ion what capacity he works after his contract with them has run out. If he was still currently under contract with Sony, that would be different as he'd still be bound by the terms of their agreement.

He's not. Butler is a suit and tie, not a lab coat. As for line delivery, Sony do not entirely own that, part of that IS the actor playing the role. Unless you're trying to claim that Sony can now own inflection and attitude.
His contract is up, they don't own the mans face or voice, and they cannot restrict him from working for whoever he wants.
cl1983  +   1217d ago
Well being my last bubble I think that this will end with bridgestone settling for both parties out of court That Jerry never works for sony again, and sony takes a pr hit.
#1.1.10 (Edited 1217d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(1) | Report
Imalwaysright  +   1217d ago
Do you even listen to yourself? Jerry is not Sony's property! As soon as Jerry's contract is over he can work for whom he damn well pleases. Sony has to prove that the character he played is Kevin Butler VP of whathever in order to win the lawsuit. Good luck with that since it wasnt given an identity to the character Jerry played on the Bridgestone commercial. Sony only has rights to that fictional character but has right to decide what Jerry can or cant do in his professional life.

Im also astounded that someone disagreed with cl1983 comment "Sony could only copy right Keven Butler as a vp of sony, not Jerry Lambert natural looks." Does Jerry need to make a plastic surgery to land a new job? Really? What is this? Bizarro world?
#1.1.11 (Edited 1217d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(3) | Report
matgrowcott  +   1217d ago

See, this is what people are getting wrong. Butler wasn't just a role that Lambert played, it was a character in a series of advertisements. He was selling a brand. Comparing Lambert to Laurie in House is completely off-base. You won't ever see Rowan Atkinson advertising a debit card that isn't from Barclays using a character similar to Johnny English; you won't ever see "Monkey" advertising Sky TV or Virgin Media.

If Laurie finished his contract with L'oreal however, and then started advertising some rival brand of male product three days later, you can bet your bottom dollar that L'oreal would be fairly angry and they WOULD sue.

The fact that his contract expired isn't necessarily important (although it might be, we'll have to see what the judge says). It all comes down to whether Sony's image (via the Kevin Butler character) has been damaged by Bridgestone and Nintendo. Since that's what Sony are complaining about, the contract probably doesn't matter anyway.

I do agree with cl1983 though, in that there's little chance this will go to court. Bridgestone released an edited/reshot commercial, right? If they've done that, I imagine they've probably already made an out-of-court offer as well.


No, Sony has prove that the character in the Bridgestone commercial could be mistaken for Kevin Butler. It could, it was. Take a look on comments here and on YouTube.

And further to that, Sony has no problem with Lambert working. They DO have a problem with the face of Kevin Butler saying how great Nintendo is. And it just so happens to be a problem that will easily go in their favour if it goes to court.
#1.1.12 (Edited 1217d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(6) | Report
FragMnTagM  +   1217d ago
This is getting retarded. I don't really care that much for the guy (not funny in the slightest bit). Yet, what Sony is doing is downright foolish.

Sue the guy who did like 90% of the advertising for you this generation for appearing in another commercial that was loosely about another game console (mostly about tires), is just fucking retarded.

I hope Sony looses this case.

Sony does not own a person. If they win this lawsuit things could get really bad. First you have corporations being ruled as having the same rights as a person. Then if Sony wins this lawsuit, it sets the precedent that corporations can legally own the rights to a person? WTF has this world come to?
darthv72  +   1217d ago
the lawsuit will fail
sony will lose because they have no case. There are very fine details people are missing. He was not specifically playing the wii in the commercial nor was he really advertising for it.

The commercial is for a tire company to which he had done other ads prior to this one. It wasnt like all of a sudden bridgestone says, lets get that butler guy to be in our commercial.

he made other commercials related to tires and unrelated to sony. That is what this commercial is about as well.

What will happen if it goes to court and will have to recoup those losses the only way they know how. from the consumers.

edit: I was wondering, besides the faithful on N4G. How well did those Butler ads do on "TV"? I hardly ever saw them but sure as hell saw lots of them on the web.

And my kids saw them too and never once exclaimed, hey dad its that sony guy doing a tire commercial. go figure, you would think it would be the younger audience that would notice such things.
#1.1.14 (Edited 1217d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report
Imalwaysright  +   1217d ago
"And further to that, Sony has no problem with Lambert working. They DO have a problem with the face of Kevin Butler saying how great Nintendo is. And it just so happens to be a problem that will easily go in their favour if it goes to court." That is NOT Kevin Butler face. That is Jerry Lambert face. You do realize that we're talking about a real person dont you? Kevin Butler is a fictional character and could be played by you, me or any other man in the World. Sony doesnt own Jerry Lambert face or acting style and its preposterous to think they do. As soon as Jerry Lambert contract was over so were his obligations to Sony and like you and me he is a free man and can live his life the way he wants to.
#1.1.15 (Edited 1217d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report
crxss  +   1217d ago
if you're Bridgestone and you let the guy, who's mainly known to play Kevin Butler the PS guy, to play the Wii for our commercials you know you're just being stupid.

imagine if Mayhem or Flo were seen doing other commercials with just an extra lab coat on doing commercials against All-State or Progressive respectively.

it's just not a smart move, common sense people.
AO1JMM  +   1217d ago

You are arguing with Sony fan-boys. They all think that Jerry Lambert can only do Sony commercials as Kevin Butler.
doogiebear  +   1217d ago
@ cl1983:

Yeah, just like your girlfriend/wife is only your GF when she's with you. But when your not around, well, who cares right? She's not violating anything if she didn't expect you to find out about that party last night, right? Right?
#1.1.18 (Edited 1217d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report
pixelsword  +   1217d ago
I blame Sony's recently fired PR department:

Use the guy more and he wouldn't have to go somewhere else to help pay his bills and live his life.
CalvinKlein  +   1217d ago
Im pretty sure that sony will loose this if they are suing on the basis that the actor cant do anything without out them being able to claim he is using the "kevin buttler" character when he is just an actor.

If sony could win this then other actors would be getting sued all the time. If daniel craig did anything with action besides james bond, and he does, then they would sue him saying he is being James bond in some other movie every time he acts in a movie besides james bond.

And he also wasnt working for sonys competitors, he was working for a tire company who was giving away a wii.
#1.2 (Edited 1217d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
zebramocha  +   1217d ago
Most people seem to confuse Sony's suit,they are suing because they fell bridgestone commercial with wii is being promoted by Mr.Lambert,who most recognize as Kevin Butler,if anyone sees the edited and unedited version you would notice his inclusion isn't needed and it's a bit suspicious or a coincidence that he's used in the promotion for the wii and if this is a petty suit the people at Sony would've sued sense he was on a tv show not long ago,I assume the commercial is either cash-in on his notoriety as a direct or indirect promotion because most did not know who he was until Sony,this is not a diss on his acting abilities but he was not known until he was used to sell games.
#1.2.1 (Edited 1217d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(4) | Report
ElitaStorm  +   1217d ago
Bridgestone should thank Sony for the lawsuit

now millions know who and what Bridgestone is.

i did not know anything about them
Bimkoblerutso  +   1217d ago
....Bridgestone is probably the biggest tire company in the world.
#1.3.1 (Edited 1217d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report
pixelsword  +   1217d ago
@ Bimkobelrusto:

That might be true, but in some areas all you hear is about different tires.

In Detroit/Grand Rapids Michigan, All you hear about is Michelin tires and Goodyear (due to sports ads), next with Sears as far as tires. Bridgestone is known, but if someone merely says "Bridgestone" out of the blue, I don't think anyone would be thinking about tires.

Tempe/Phoenix Arizona, maybe;

In Chicago, Illinois everyone's probably still talking about Davins; I don't think tires are favored there except that whitewalls may be out of season (clashes with Davins).
#1.3.2 (Edited 1217d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report
jc48573  +   1217d ago
honestly, I really can't tell the difference. Sometimes I figure that's just the way he has always been even before Kevin Butler.
KUV1977  +   1217d ago
"The contract between Sony and Wild Creek, Lambert's company, was entered into on 7th August 2009 and contained an exclusivity clause that prevented Lambert from working for PlayStation competitors, such as Nintendo. The contract expired at the end of August 2012. The Bridgestone ads appeared on TV three days later. Sony said Lambert started work for Bridgestone in February 2012 while still under contract with SCEA, and so Sony claims a breach."

Not sure what to think of it.
cl1983  +   1217d ago
But Jerry didn't work for Nintendo he worked for bridgestone, so again need to actually read the contract or at a least a 3rd party lawyer to read it.
KUV1977  +   1217d ago
I'm pretty sure the contract is formulated in a way that it was not allowed for him to promote other consoles. In that case I think SONY is absolutely right to sue. But on the other hand the contract ended before the new spot aired and so I think it's fine for the guy to do whatever he pleases.
What makes me a little unsure is that the spot was produced while the contract was still in effect. I think it's a little stupid from both sides. Jerry Lambert shouldn't have produced the spot but also SONY shouldn't have sued since the airtime was fine and if the spot was produced in the 2 days before everything would have been fine.
Imalwaysright  +   1217d ago
If thats the case Sony has to sue Jerry Lambert, the person that breached the contract. Why is Sony suing Bridgestone?
ChunkyLover53  +   1217d ago
Baseless and greedy by Sony in my opinion. I guess people can start using the $ instead of an S......So sad when people think they own something like a face.
zebramocha  +   1217d ago
I guess you weren't paying attention,this is not exactly about money but of how Mr.Lambert's acting in the bridgestone commercial may confuse people who thinks he's advertising wii's.
#4.1 (Edited 1217d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(9) | Report | Reply
darthv72  +   1217d ago
was he REALLY advertising the wii? Or was he simply standing to the side while someone else played?

I also dont see why sony think this will "confuse" consumers. Gamer commercials vs tire commercials. One is for younger audiences, one is for older audiences.

By some slim chance that an older audience member watches kids shows or specifically the sony butler commercials (which, made more of a boom on the web than real tv) then they will think to themself...

gosh, now im confused on who this guy really is...'scratches head' is he sony vp or tire guy #2?
ChunkyLover53  +   1217d ago
Did people actually believe he was VP of anything at Sony? Seriously, Slash isn't real, Santa Claus isn't real, Kevin Butler isn't real either.

He's an actor, if you saw him in a movie or television show and he wasn't acting like Kevin Butler, would you associate that with the Kevin Butler character?

His contract was up, he was in a tire commercial. If Sony wanted to retain his services they could have.
r21  +   1217d ago
Umm, what is Bridgestone talking bout here? Clearly he was in their ad UNTIL they digitally altered their videos recently :L

Anyways, I feel bad for Jerry Lambert/Kevin Butler, stuck in the middle of this whole mess :C
KUV1977  +   1217d ago
Bridgestone is saying that they had Jerry Lambert in their ad but not Kevin Butler.
r21  +   1217d ago
Oh, my mistake then. This whole debacle is just confusing.
Summons75  +   1217d ago
Jerry Lambert is an actor who portrayed Kevin Butler. Bridgestone did not have Kevin Butler in their comercial, they had Jerry Lambert. Just because he played Kevin Butler dose not mean he is now and forever Kevin Butler. The only place that character and name will follow him is on his resume along with all the other roles he has played. This would be like saying Christian Bale ruined The Dark Knight because he also played in Terminator Salvation, Sony is claiming they are hurting the Playstation brand because Jerry Lambert was in the bridgestone commercial. Jerry's contract was over with Sony before the commercial aired so this whole lawsuit is completely pointless and stupid.
FragMnTagM  +   1217d ago
I agree. I hope Lambert and Bridgestone counter-sue and win. Sony is being really immature here.
Cajun Chicken  +   1217d ago
My God, this is ridiculous and will end up in just losing an entertaining mascot, plus, p**sing off an actor who basically isn't allowed to be himself in any other advertising scheme.

Seriously, Sony drop it. The advert got edited, people learned, that should be it. You're chasing employees away and ruining chances with any other agencies.
FragMnTagM  +   1217d ago
Everyone know their advertising has been pretty crappy this generation. Then they go and attack their only 'good' actor that did commercials for them. Sony likes to dig their own grave.
Parappa  +   1217d ago | Well said
If Bridgestone edited the ad then they know they're in the wrong otherwise they would've never changed it.
zebramocha  +   1217d ago
So,what saying is,they have to "believe"in what they're doing.
andibandit  +   1216d ago
@Parappa, no but it's just good business to correct any potential wrongdoing, even before a decision has been reached.

Your conclusion is just silly.
#7.2 (Edited 1216d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
ALLWRONG  +   1217d ago
Sony needs to let this one go
Nerdmaster  +   1217d ago
So Sony is basically saying that it owns Jerry Lambert's body and voice? Even after their contract expired? Can he at least keep his soul?
Lvl_up_gamer  +   1217d ago
I am afraid that Sony will lose this case. Sony can't prove Kevin Butler was in the Bridgeston commercial. Only his "likeness" was in the commercial. You can't stop a business from hiring an actor just because the actors face is well known for a different product.

He's an actor. He acts.

Sony, just save those $$$ on lawyer fees, you need $$$ too much right now then to spend in on hopes of making more $$$ by suing other companies for hiring actors that you once used for your own marketing and advertising purposes.
Dante112  +   1217d ago
How do you know what Sony or Bridgestone can prove? Or who will win for that matter? You're just a regular Joe looking in, I think it's best to let the judges sort it out out since it's their profession. Until we see the full contract page by page how could you or I know what's fair?

Edit: @ Parappa

Exactly, why did Bridgestone edit Lambert with the Wii out of their commercial?
#10.1 (Edited 1217d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
Lvl_up_gamer  +   1217d ago
You're kidding right? Is the name "kevin butler" used in the commercial? NO so how can Sony prove that it's Kevin Butler? Actors can't change their face for every commercial because it was used in some other commercial.

You don't see movie studios suing other movie studios because an actor is being used that was once in their own movie.

Don't be foolish. What is presented in the commercial is the ONLY case Sony can bring to the table. There is NOTHING there. Only a the of an actor.

Use your head.


"Exactly, why did Bridgestone edit Lambert with the Wii out of their commercial? "

Due to the lawsuit. Until the final verdict, there was most likely a cease of all commercials with Jeremy Lambert implemented by the courts while investigations move forward. So instead of pulling all the commercials, he was just edited out. This is standard procedures in court battles.
#10.1.1 (Edited 1217d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(5) | Report
testerg35  +   1217d ago
Dante112, so you're questioning Lvl_up_gamer since he doesn't know the contract, but yet you agree with Parappa? Is Parappa part of Sony's legal department that he would know the contract 'page by page'?
trouble_bubble  +   1217d ago
"I am afraid that Sony will lose this case. Sony can't prove Kevin Butler was in the Bridgeston commercial. Only his "likeness" was in the commercial. You can't stop a business from hiring an actor just because the actors face is well known for a different product.."

Wow, you know nothing about these kinds of cases or the clauses actors get. You think this is a first? Read up on trademark law and what exactly it does and tries to curb. While you're at it, tell Andrew Garfield to show up in a Spider-man likeness in Avengers 2 even though Sony/Columbia owns the Spider-man IP for film and Disney owns the Avengers. It's all Marvel right? He's just an actor right? Can't stop him from working. Yeah, no.

The Naked Cowboy successfully settled with M&Ms when he sued them for using his 'likeness' in an M&M commercial, and that was an animated parody. Robert Burck doesn't look like a milk chocolate pellet in real life. They didn't call the M&M by the guy's name either...yet bang...they paid him off in the end.

It doesn't take much to prove brand confusion in this case. One only has to google to see the Kevin Butler name all over his story. You helped Sony inadvertantly by saying "they only used the Kevin Butler likeness." That's all ya need. If the Old Spice guy ever pops up in the background of a Goodyear commercial, half naked applying some speedstick when he has no sanely reason to even be there with a Speedstick in the first place, Goodyear will be makin' some quick edits and settling out of court with OldSpice too.
Dlacy13g  +   1217d ago
Sony will lose its case against Bridgestone. They have ZERO leverage there. They merely dragged Bridgestone in as part of the deep pocket principle. In a lawsuit you try to include as many people as possible including any companies possibly linked that have deeper pockets for settlement purposes. Sony figures there is an opportunity to make a quick buck here.

Jeremy Lambert unfortunately is the one that is potentially liable here. The real argument is going to come down to what the courts will deem "working for a competitor" in Jeremy's chosen profession. Does the mere act of recording and working in the production commercial constitute breach or is it the actual airing of the commercial that is a breach...and if the later is the case then being that it aired 3 days after the contract expiration then is this lawsuit frivolous given the contract was null and void at the time of airing?
rainslacker  +   1217d ago
That's all true, although it would depend on the actual complaint if they would judge that issue to put it into precedent.

It would also depend on if Lambert had some sort of non-compete clause in his contract. Something akin to saying he could not work either directly or indirectly with a competing brand for a specific period of time after the contract ended...typically 6-12 months in the game industry. I imagine with how high-profile he was for the company he definitely would have had one of these, and it possibly could have been longer than 12 months.

I imagine if there was no Wii in this commercial then there would not have been a lawsuit. That in itself is what got Sony's attention I think. The rest may just be legal wordings in order to proceed with the case.

As far as the character goes he plays it pretty well, so if Bridgestone was looking for that kind of quirky character he already had the resume to prove he was the guy. However if Bridgestone purposely sought him out as "that PS guy" then they and Lambert could both be held liable.

I'm very interested in how this case will turn out, and I'm reserving judgment until more facts come out. I'm not holding my breath though, as it will probably be settled out of court and the records sealed.

It's a shame because I would have liked to see more Kevin Butler.
#11.1 (Edited 1217d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Ben_Grimm  +   1217d ago
Well I personally was confused when I saw Kevin Butler in the Bridgestone commercial playing the Wii. It totally wacked out my senses and free thinking and I automatically switched sides in the great console war.

The power of television!

/s (do I even need to put that tag)
smashcrashbash  +   1217d ago
So if it is all cut and dry as people seem to think it is then why did Bridgestone edit him out. They obviously have something to hide or else they wouldn't have bothered to do that at all and just cry foul. As per usual no one knows the details but are so eager to say 'Sony bad' that they don't care.Besides who really cares if they win or not? What does this have to do with gaming? I wish we would talk more about gaming then lawsuits and business data. Microsoft acted like monsters and greedy bastards for years and they are still here pretending as if they weren't. So why the doom of Sony because of this one thing? No one cares. I just want to know when my games are coming out.
#13 (Edited 1217d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
Relientk77  +   1217d ago
What Bridgestone sees:

Jerry Lambert
Bridgestone Engineer

What we, the gamers, see:

Kevin Butler
VP, Sony Computer Entertainment America Marketing
ZeekQuattro  +   1217d ago
I'm a gamer and what I see is an actor who's been in Geico, Bridgestone, and Holiday Inn commercials. Not to mention making numerous TV sitcom appearances. Kevin Butler is not the only character Jerry Lambert has been known for.
AO1JMM  +   1217d ago
I am a gamer and all I saw was Jerry Lambert the actor playing a Bridgestone engineer.
ajax17  +   1217d ago
WTF is a trye??? Oh, this is from eurogamer... right....
StreetsofRage  +   1217d ago
Sony: Desperate times comes with desperate measures. They need money!
tiffac008  +   1217d ago
If proven that Jerry breached his contract and was working on the ad with Bridgestone last Feb 2012 before his contact expired last April 2012, then Sony may win this case. Otherwise, I don't see how Sony can prove their claims that Jerry was acting like Kevin Butler in the ad.
Captain Tuttle  +   1217d ago
I think there's some people on N4G who really think this guy is Kevin Butler

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Battlefield 4 PS4 and Xbox One servers get higher tickrate this week

7m ago - DICE has announced it has seen the potential of some improvements to the game including increasin... | PC

Sebastien Loeb Rally EVO PC Monte Carlo gameplay

33m ago - TeamVVV writes: "Our latest Sebastien Loeb Rally EVO gameplay video sees us travel to Monte Carlo... | PC

Gran Turismo SPORT Beta Testing Begins early 2016

Now - Start tracking GTS with's release date alert service and be notified when the GTS beta launches. | Promoted post

Review - Gravity Rush Remastered (TGP)

50m ago - TGP writes: "If I had a Playstation Vita I think Gravity Rush would be one of my favourite games... | PS4

Review: Firewatch (DarkZero)

1h ago - Simon Lundmark: "It turns out that Firewatch isn't quite as difficult to describe as a certain E3... | PC

Obliteracers: Racing Fun for the Whole Family | Hardcore Gamer

1h ago - Quick, name five family-friendly racing games other than Mario Kart. Name two? For sure, there si... | PC