This April, Katherine Heigl filed a $6 million lawsuit against the drug store Duane Reade. Their offense? An innocuous tweet in which they posted a paparazzi photo of Heigl carrying Duane Reade grocery bags. A Duane Reade rep tweeted “Love a quick #DuaneReade run? Even @KatieHeigl can’t resist shopping #NYC’s favorite drugstore.” They gave her a shout out on Twitter and everything, assuming it was NBD. Three weeks later, Heigl filed the lawsuit. It’s unknown whether or not she had her lawyer issue a cease & desist first, or whether she asked the company to remove the tweet after it was posted.
Nearly five months later, and Duane Reade and Heigl have reached a settlement. The drug store gave an undisclosed donation to Heigl’s animal charity.
Katherine Heigl has dropped her $6 million lawsuit against the business after they posted paparazzi shots of her carrying the store’s branded bags on their Twitter and Facebook accounts without her consent.
The ‘Knocked Up’ star had accused them of violating New York civil rights statutes which protect use of likenesses for purpose of trade.The 35-year-old actress is now believed to have come to an agreement with Duane Reade, who will make an undisclosed contribution to the Jason Debus Heigl Foundation in exchange for her dropping the suit at the Manhattan Federal Court.
The star set up the animal-welfare charity with the help of her mother following the death of her late brother in a car accident in 1986.
Katherine’s lawyer, Corey Field, told The Hollywood Reporter: ‘The parties have agreed to keep the terms of the agreement confidential.’
The [actress] had claimed the chain tried to profit from the photo without her ‘knowledge or approval’ by sharing the image featuring the company’s promotional slogans.
The offending tweet, which has now been deleted, read: ‘Love a quick #DuaneReade run? Even @KatieHeigl can’t resist shopping #NYC’s favorite drugstore’.
Peter Haviland at Ballard Spahr added to The Hollywood Reporter: ‘Katherine Heigl and Duane Reade have worked out a mutually beneficial agreement.’
I wish Duane Reade wouldn’t have caved, but I get it. It’s easier to reach a settlement than go to court. It’s nice that the money is going to charity, although I question the validity of this lawsuit. $6 million for one tweet of a photo that the drug store didn’t even take? She should have asked them to delete the tweet and that’s it. Suing seems excessive to say the least.
Maybe Heigl wanted to make sure she wouldn’t get any more negative publicity ahead of her new show, State of Affairs, which comes out on NBC in early November. I doubt it will do well but we’ll see.
photo credit: WENN.com
Since the $ went to animals I am fine with a settlement.
Heigl needed it to go away. It just makes her look petty and mean, and she can’t afford any more bad press before her new TV show. Plus her lawyer probably advised her that someone tweeting a photo of you on a public street doesn’t violate your civil rights. I don’t think I would describe this as Duane Reade caving.
exxacccttllyy this
++++1
Oh there’s Kiddo’s dress again, her satin muumuu. Would look much better with a ginormous yellow chunky necklace, and a cherry vodka Kool-Aid stain* on it.
*i hope that wasn’t too passive aggressive.
That dress is a great example of the fact that just because it’s vintage doesn’t mean it’ll look good. Though it doesn’t matter what she wears at this point until she gets her hair and make up fixed.
I loathe her hair color with a passion; it rivals Goopy’s in it’s brassiness.
Is it just bad taste? Or does she just p*ss off her hair and makeup person? Because a decade ago she was very pretty, but its like she lets my grandmother get her dressed and ready for stuff.
Yes and yes! He hair color is awful and the bouffant bangs every single time kill me!
I guess I am out of the loop on here, are you guys friends or is this some strange feud? I can’t really tell and maybe that’s good. Lol.
Kiddo and I are arch enemies. She destroyed my village (she’s part nuclear lizard) and is always sending me horrible outfits via Amazon drone. She’s also suuuuper spammy.
*Oh and don’t drink her Kool-Aid, it’s totally spiked.
My Kool-Aid brings all the boys to the yard.
That was a great description, mimif, you are a worthy opponent.
Spam spammer spams, Sir Spam-alot. And then FRANCO, just for good measure.
As long as there’s no Levine involved, I welcome your spam.
So many facial fillers.
So little humility.
Did she always have those gigantic bolt on looking boobs? I don’t remember that. I read a blind about her having tons of plastic surgery for her big comeback. I’m thinking that’s true, but I can’t really tell it on her face. I hope she has learned to keep her mouth shut. I also hope she has a really good stylist for this round because she can’t do her hair of dress herself to save her life. Although this awful dress doesn’t bode well for the future.
She’s always had a large pair, I think the size is natural. She might have had something done to keep them so perky. I think it’s obvious she’s had work done on her face, she looks so plastic.
But god, this story is so ridiculous. What a petty, mean thing to do.
Most brands and stores tweet pictures of celebrities wearing their stuff. It’s all celebrities too, not just the ones you know are getting paid to hock a certain brand. Even if it’s just a pair of jeans. (I’m always amazed, how can they tell what brand of jeans they are from a photograph?) And out of all those hundreds of celebrities Heigl was the only one who has ever decided to try and sue. That tells you everything you need to know about her.
Somehow she manages to make everything she wears look matronly.
I like that she sued them. Duane R is a BIG company. They are making big money. They know the rules, and they can afford to pay for adds etc.
She gave it to charity. Good for everybody.
I have mixed feelings. $6 million seems like a lot, but they really had no right to use her image in what was essentially a commercial without her permission. And I think they probably know that.
It was a Tweet of a paparazzi photo taken on a public street, we’re not exactly talking about a massive ad campaign using illicitly procured photos. $6 million dollars? Now, the part where this gets interesting is the role and worth of social media in advertising. I can’t remember the original Tweet, but clearly they purchased the photos legally, so it would appear that DR is actually in the right. Remember, one of the biggest reasons why stars are able to block paparazzi photos that show things like nudity that are then sold to for-profit sites, is that the photos were taken in a place that the stars had a reasonable expectation of privacy, like their back yard. But Heigl’s were on the street, essentially giving ownership of that image to the photographer that took the images.
True, but then they used her image to promote their store without her permission, even if they obtained the photo legally. I can see why that would be a problem. However, what damage did it do to her? None, really. So I can see how they could be prohibited from doing it again, but I don’t see how she gets any compensation for it. Not that I’m any kind of expert or anything.
They were legally obtained photos, with the factual statement that Heigl shops at DR. Basically, she was being a jerk, and they most likely made the donation as a settlement because she agreed to make the lawsuit go away quickly instead of drawing it out longer and incurring more fees on both sides.
So if you Bridget come out of a sextoyshop and some “paparazzo” takes a picture, the shop has every right to buy and use your photo without permission for their commercials? Think about it
Ignorant.
No one has the right to use someone´s picture or name without permission for commercials etc.
Yeah, they were in the wrong, no question. I agree the amount seems excessive but she was out to prove a point, and I am happy it is going to her animal charity because I can almost forgive all the bad rom coms for the amount of good she does for animals.
I love her Emmy’s gown. I think it’s nice to see sleeves; fits her well… people say “matronly” as a put down but hey, she is a mother!
I think we are so used to seeing Emma Stones and Kate Bosworths that a nice healthy figure is perceived with disdain as being slovenly…
Yeah, that’s not it at all.
I think it wasn’t right of DR to use her photo & celebrity for unpaid promotion, but a $6 million lawsuit was ridiculous and made her look even worse than them. She could have easily tweeted back to them “please don’t use me to advertise without my permission” and asked them to take it down.
I do think it’s great that the animal charity got funds from this.
That dress is…. Unfortunate.
Yes it went to charity but it went to HER charity. One set up by Mommy Dearest. Someone should look into the charity to see if it’s actually legitmate. I see shades of Kelly Rutherford’s charity on this. Sorry but if she wanted it to go to animals, she should have donated it to SPCA or some reputable charity.
Ordinarily I’m a little suspicious about these celebrity foundations, but I just looked this one up, and according to the IRS report it seems pretty legit. Less than 10% expenses which is below average, and there’s no officer salaries paid out of it.
I think it was set up in honor of her brother who passed away, and it looks like it is a rescue shelter and adoption center, along with helping other organizations in that same field.
Heigl and her mother have a lot of issues when it comes to the entertainment industry, but I think this charity is for real and does good work.