Don Lemon sues Elon Musk for ‘humiliation, and mental and physical pain’ after canceled X contract

The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francsico, stated that "Amid Defendants ongoing struggle to retain advertisers, Defendants sought to affiliate with reputable figures whose name, likeness and reputation they could use to piggyback off of to retain advertisers. Lemon was a top prospect for X, and thus, Defendants saw an opportunity and sought to reach an exclusive partnership deal with Lemon, following his termination at CNN, at a time when Lemon was vulnerable."

The lawsuit claimed that Lemon had expressed "reservations" about the exclusive partnership with X "given the ongoing controversies surrounding the X platform," but the defendants went on to "induce Lemon through false promises and representations about what would be expected of them and how much Lemon would be compensated to get him to agree, all while concealing material facts from Lemon."

"Contrary to the promises and representations made to Lemon, once Defendants were enriched and gained the benefits of using Lemon’s name, likeness, identity, and reputation, they reneged on their express agreement with Lemon and have failed to compensate him, citing to false pretenses for their breach of the partnership agreement."

Lemon’s show on X, The Don Lemon Show, was announced in January. Musk sat for an interview with Lemon for the show’s first episode, with Lemon claiming that Musk canceled the partnership after that interview in March.

The lawsuit stated that on December 14, 2023, Lemon attended a meeting with Linda Yaccarino and Brett Weitz to discus a potential partnership. "During the meeting, Lemon told Yaccarino and Weitz that it was important for him to maintain his journalistic integrity and that the next step in his career following his termination at CNN was a pivotal one."

In addition to "inducing" Lemon with the promise that he would "have full authority over his work and should not have concerns about Defendants imposing on his work or not agreeing with anything he does," the "Defendants started to induce Lemon by promising a revival of his career following his termination with CNN, knowing that he was in a particularly vulnerable and susceptible state."

"Defendants deliberately misrepresented what they intended to do. Defendants knew that if they accurately represented to Lemon that the purpose and meaning of the exclusive partnership deal was to use Lemon’s name, likeness, reputation, and identity to rehabilitate Defendants reputation and draw in advertisers to the X platform, Lemon would never have agreed to do what he did and Defendants would have been unable to utilize Lemon to keep up with their ongoing efforts to woo advertisers," the lawsuit stated.

The lawsuit stated that Lemon received a one-year deal with the agreement that he would be paid $1,500,000, with the option to renew the deal two times, 60 percent of cross-advertising revenue that X received from Lemon’s content, gradually increasing payments for meeting follower thresholds, $500,000 in X advertising credits, and for a two-year period "10 percent of the net revenue that X receives once it exceeds $350,000 for content creators that Lemon referred to X."

"Lemon would not have agreed to enter into this exclusive partnership deal with Defendants if he had known that Defendants would fail to deliver on these representations and promises," the lawsuit later added.

The lawsuit claimed that Lemon was "rushed" into agreeing to the partnership.

"As a result of Lemon’s justifiable reliance on Defendants’ false promises and misrepresentations, Lemon agreed to the exclusive partnership deal, promoted Defendants’ business to advertisers on his social media and at marketing events, and put his own reputation at stake by associating himself with Defendants," the lawsuit stated, adding that the Defendants "never intended to fulfill their representations and promises to Lemon."

The lawsuit stated that within one day of Lemon’s interview with Musk, his agent received a text message from Musk stating that Lemon’s "contract [with Defendants] is cancelled."

"Close to this time, Weitz spoke with Lemon by phone and told Lemon that Defendants were not going to pay him or follow through with the promises and representations made to him because there was no signed agreement, despite Musk previously representing to Lemon that there would be no need for a formal written agreement or to 'fill out paperwork.’"

"To this day, Defendants have not compensated Lemon pursuant to the exclusive partnership deal that Defendants induced Lemon to enter into."

"Later, Defendants claimed that they never entered into a partnership deal with Lemon, which demonstrates the fraudulent nature of Defendants’ promises and representations in that they had already entered into an express agreement with Lemon and were instead violating that partnership. As a result, Defendants have provided false and inconsistent reasons for refusing to pay Lemon that completely contradicts what Musk told Lemon’s agent in his text message.

Following the cancelation of the partnership, it was revealed that Lemon had a list of demands during contract negotiations that included hosting the first podcast in outer space via SpaceX, a Tesla Cybertruck, a $5 million advance payment of an $8 million salary, and equity in X.

Don Lemon v Elon Musk by Hannah Nightingale on Scribd