Glick v. MTV Networks

796 F. Supp. 743 (1992)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Glick v. MTV Networks

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
796 F. Supp. 743 (1992)

  • Written by Brett Stavin, JD

Facts

From August 12 through October 11, 1989, MTV Networks (defendant) (MTV), a television network, offered a promotional sweepstakes called VH-1 Corvette Collection through one of its channels, known as VH-1. The sweepstakes included over 20,000 prizes, including inexpensive items such as key chains and T-shirts. The grand prize was a choice of a collection of 36 Corvette automobiles or a 1989 Corvette plus $200,000 in cash. Entrants could participate in the sweepstakes in three ways: calling a 900 number, for which there was a $2 charge; requesting a toll-free number by mail; or completing and mailing in an official entry blank distributed at music stores and promotional events. Each entry method had an equal chance of winning. The sweepstakes was publicized nationwide through MTV’s television network as well as other media and publicity events. Ultimately, over a million people entered the sweepstakes, the vast majority through calling the 900 number. Barry Glick (plaintiff), one of the losing entrants, filed an action in federal district court seeking to recover damages on the basis that the sweepstakes was an illegal lottery. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. Glick argued that the sweepstakes was illegal gambling through which MTV collected a share of the $2 charges associated with the 900-number calls. Glick acknowledged that there were alternative means of entering the sweepstakes, but he argued that the sweepstakes was carefully promoted to ensure that most entries would come through the 900 number and that MTV intentionally made it more difficult for individuals to enter the sweepstakes through the alternative means. MTV argued that the sweepstakes was not an illegal lottery, because the participants were not required to give something of value in exchange for a chance to win, given that there were means of entry besides the 900 number.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Duffy, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership