Eddie Hearn had no choice but to get his lawyers on the case. Jake Paul was given the option to apologise and retract his accusations but chose to not do that. Legal route is the only option left for Hearn. Not sure why anyone would say differently. Every single promoter would be responding with there legal team in the same situation.
In a nutshell (as I understand anyway), in the UK Paul would have to prove what he said was true to successfully defend against libel but in the US Hearn needs to prove it was false to successfully prosecute it...
Not only that it was false but that Paul knew it was false and said it maliciously. It will be almost impossible to make a case because JP can point to 100,000 YouTube videos, blog posts, and newspaper articles making the same accusation. All sorts of big names and boxing experts have made the same claim about the AJ fight specifically. It's easy for JP to say "well I may have been mistaken but you can see why I believed this."
Eddie Hearn doesn't select judges. The sanctioning bodies do. And in the case of the Joshua and Usyk rematch, there were three sanctioning bodies involved. And Hearn's fighter was the challenger. Usyk represented the sanctioning bodies. He was their champ and still is. Joshua wasn't. If Hearn bribed the judges, they voted for the wrong guy. Paul is screwed. This will drag out for years. Paul will be broke when it's over. He has more social media followers than probably every boxing promoter combined, and now Paul is a direct competitor of Hearn. So he can't pretend he's just a fan expressing an opinion. He's literally "an influencer." Now Paul has to defend his statements in court. If he can't, and he doesn't have proof bribes were paid, he loses.
There's one good thing that Jake Paul, but no other boxer did - talking about the corruption in boxing. We've seen plenty of for the last few years.
I'm with Paul on this one. Feldman was either on hallucinogenic drugs or he was on the dazn/matchroom payroll.
Strange world we are living into. Saying the true, and you are getting sued for 100m. This is pathetic from Hearn to be fair. But i don't get why Jake Paul didn't just recall his claims and safe himself all the trouble going into this case. It's absolutely idiotic. We all know that the judge was paid to score the fight for AJ, but good luck proving it. Still i also don't see how Hearn can make a claim that this statement damage his company for 100m. or so.
Care to explain how it does then? https://www.ukessays.com/essays/media/compare-law-of-defamation-in-us-and-britain-media-essay.php (sub-section 'Burden of Proof')
What I have seen is that JP has been sued "for at least 75k" by EH EH has now clarified that he wants "at least 100M" I predict an undisclosed settlement prob in region of 500k-1m
