Following U.S. District Judge Steven C. Seeger’s partial rejection of Nike’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit involving a failed laser-light present for the 2020 NBA All-Star Game in Chicago, Seeger last Friday made a claim that Chicago had favored the Chicago Bulls over Nike by allowing a building to get lit up in red, the Bulls ‘ color.
There’s another element to the discussion: the day the building was lit up in dark was Valentine’s Day.
Multiple lawsuits have emerged from a failed efforts by National Experiential, a marketing and advertising firm, to encourage Nike’s company in Chicago during the 2020 NBA All-Star game trip.
As Seeger explained, the laser-light display would have featured” a jaw-dropping, gravity-defying feat by a Chicago Bulls legend …]and ] it would ]have shown ] a video of Michael Jordan’s unimaginable, unforgettable dunk during the 1988 slam-dunk contest, plus the Nike ‘ Jumpman ‘ logo”. One Prudential Plaza ( previously the Prudential Building ) and the Aon Center, two skyscrapers bordering the city’s Millennium Park, were the locations of the projections. There would have also been a Batman-style encouraged “bat signal” light event near the United Center.

Unfortunately for National Experiential and laser-light show enthusiasts, the show did n’t go on. The issue was over whether National Experiential needed a capital force.
National Experiential and the area agreed to give the business a license to use Millennium Park images, but a certificate is not a sanction, and the city still had the right to terminate the agreement “at any time, for any reason.” According to emails with the real estate business that runs Millennium Park, National Experiential believed that the light display was n’t required to be permitted. That was a blunder.
National Experiential learned from the same real estate company just two weeks before the big event that it in fact required a capital force. That was bad news, especially since the state’s law governing banners prohibits “temporary light indicators” and “dynamic picture displays”. National Experiential had very little time to get permission by that point, and the law also gave a municipal superintendent the authority to issue a temporary indication permit ( with a number of restrictions ).
National Experiential has sued, among others, Nike, the city, the real estate company and the Chicago Sports Commission ( CSC ) —an influential private entity that Seeger wrote has members including” Chicago’s most powerful business and sports leaders” such as “representatives from the Chicago Bulls”.
According to Seeger, National Experiential “got a training in how things work in Chicago,” and it accuses the CSC of working behind the scenes to make the decision to light the Prudential Building in purple” to encourage the Bulls” rather than the Nike laser-light present. CSC did n’t need a permit, despite the fact that National Experiential was informed that it did.

In previous Friday’s decision, Seeger dismissed legal claims against CSC and the real estate business because, among other factors, they are private institutions. The judge, who was previously a companion in the Chicago company of Kirkland & Ellis before joining the couch in 2019, chose to ignore National Experiential’s allegations against the town.
National Experiential points to the city’s claim that it “illegally discriminates against Plaintiff’s momentary sign prediction” by requiring a permit. According to National Experiential, the city engaged in stance bias by allowing CSC to light up the Prudential Building in dark without a force after denying National Experiential access to its planned show due to a lack of a permit. The First Amendment prohibits government entities from restricting appearance on the basis of an expressed worldview.
” In National Experiential’s view”, Seeger wrote,” the City picked a winner and a fool, and did so based on the content of the statement. The City favored pro-Bulls talk and disfavored pro-Nike statement. The state is unable to determine who wins or loses a talk based on its message’s content.
Chicago issues this incident, including because—as the town sees it—lighting up a tower in a color is not a” sign”, which requires a permit. Chicago also argues that dark illumination, unlike the laser-light present planned by National Experiential, was not a “dynamic image screen” within the significance of the ordinance.
According to Seeger, it’s” a question for discovery” as to “why the City did what it did” and whether the City can claim that it “did not choose one display over another based on the content.”
So National Experiential’s complaint” says enough to live to fight another day”.