Skip to Content
Law Office of Daniel Horowitz Law Office of Daniel Horowitz
Call Us TodaP3:Sub:Phone}y! 925-291-5388
Top

The "Savage Nation" Case against Talk Radio Network

Picture of Michael Savage from his Twitter known as X account

How Daniel Horowitz Won the Savage Nation lawsuit Against Talk Radio Network and Changed Talk Radio Forever

Michael Savage, the top-rated talk radio host, achieved a historic legal victory against Talk Radio Network (TRN) in 2012. Daniel Horowitz represented Michael Savage and the recovery was worth millions of dollars in the dollar award, the return of all of Michael Savage’s archival material and complete freedom of Michael Savage to take his show wherever he chose.

The case of "Michael Savage v TRN" is officially known as "Weiner v. Original Talk Radio Network" [2]. Dr. Michael A. Weiner, who performs under the professional name of Michael Savage, along with Savage Productions, Inc., filed a lawsuit against The Original Talk Radio Network ("TRN") [3], [4]. The complaint alleged a contractual dispute stemming from January 2000 through December 2010, with a disagreement on whether TRN exercised its "right to match" according to Paragraph 19 of the agreement [1].

The complaint also alleged that TRN's proposal did not match the terms of a proposal from Courtside, LLC, which Dr. Savage sought under TRN's encouragement. The argument was that TRN's proposal had less financial gain than Courtside's offer and contained anti-competitive provisions that were illegal, limited Dr. Savage's negotiating rights, and imposed additional terms not present in the Courtside proposal [1], [2].

The contract between the parties included an arbitration provision that TRN proposed, which was agreed upon with alternate language proposed by Dr. Savage [1]. The dispute led to an arbitration process, resulting in a termination of the parties' contract and an award of over $800,000 in withheld compensation to Savage [2].

TRN attempted to vacate the arbitration award by arguing that Savage had corrupted the process, but the court found no evidentiary support for these claims [2]. Furthermore, it was alleged that Courtside and Dial continued to maintain contact with Savage even after TRN exercised its right to match the term sheet and after the arbitration ruling, which ultimately led to the end of the relationship between Savage and OTRN [5].

During the trial, Dr. Savage was very strong in his criticisms of Talk Radio Network.  He attacked their accounting, their handling of other hosts and he argued that his contract binding him to that network was a form of modern slavery.  Laura Ingraham had filed against Talk Radio Network shortly after Michael's case became public.  Michael's victory was the end of TRN.  Laura Ingraham left shortly afterward and TRN was unable to recover.

TRN appealed the case to the United States District Court.  Michael Savage won and he frequently points out that he won his case in front of a liberal Oakland, California judge.

1. Weiner v. Original Talk Radio Network

United States District Court, N.D. California.March 14, 2011Not Reported in F.Supp.2d2011 WL 873246

"…BACKGROUND. On December 20, 2010, plaintiffs Dr. Michael A. Weiner and Savage Productions, Inc., filed this lawsuit against defendant The Original Talk Radio Network ("TRN"). Dr. Weiner, p/k/a Dr. Michael Savage, is a nationally known talk-show host and star of the "The Michael Savage Show," which is syndicated by TRN. Compl. P 1. The complaint alleges that the parties have continuously been in contract from January 2000 through December 2010. Id. P 8. The complaint alleges that Dr. Savage's contract was set to expire in December 2010, and that in the months prior to December 2010, the parties were in negotiations regarding the terms of a new contract. Id. P 1. The parties dispute whether TRN exercised its "right to match" pursuant to Paragraph 19 of the parties' contract. Paragraph 19, titled "Right to Match," provides:…"

"…The complaint alleges that prior to December 2010, and at TRN's encouragement, Dr. Savage sought out proposals from different syndicators, and received a favorable proposal from Courtside, LLC. Compl. P 1. The complaint alleges that "TRN purports to have exercised its right to match, pursuant to the parties' agreement, but the agreement it proposed to Dr. Savage does not match the terms of the Courtside offer. Not only does the TRN proposal not match the Courtside proposal in terms of financial upside, but it includes anti-competitive provisions that are illegal, limits Dr. Savage's valuable negotiating rights, and imposes additional terms that are not contained in the Courtside proposal." Id.…"

"…The parties' contract also includes an arbitration provision. It is undisputed that in 1999 when the parties were negotiating the terms of the original contract, TRN proposed an arbitration clause that required disputes between the parties to be resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to the Rules of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). Masters Decl. P 3 & Ex. A. It is also undisputed that while Dr. Savage was amenable to the concept of an arbitration clause, he objected to TRN's proposed language, and proposed alternate language that, inter alia, stated that the parties would not be represented by counsel at an arbitration. Id . P 4 & Ex. B. TRN agreed to Dr. Savage's arbitration clause. The arbitration clause in the parties' most recent contract provides,…"

2. Weiner v. Original Talk Radio Network Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California.May 02, 2013Not Reported in F.Supp.2d2013 WL 1856568

"…A. Initial District Court Proceedings. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in Federal District Court seeking declaratory judgments that Talk Radio Network failed to exercise its right to match the Courtside Term Sheet properly and that the 2002 Agreement and Arbitration Provision therein were unenforceable. The Complaint alleges that "TRN (Talk Radio Network) purports to have exercised its right to match, pursuant to the parties' agreement, but the agreement it proposed to Dr. Savage does not match the terms of the Courtside offer. Not only does the TRN proposal not match the Courtside proposal in terms of financial upside, but it includes anti-competitive provisions that are illegal, limits Dr. Savage's valuable negotiating rights, and imposes additional terms that are not contained in the Courtside proposal." (Complaint P 1.)…"

"…Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award; Denying Defendant's Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award; and Confirming Arbitration Award. This dispute arose when Defendant Original Talk Radio Network Inc ., doing business as Talk Radio Network Inc. ("Talk Radio Network"), attempted to exercise a "right to match" provision in an independent contractor agreement with radio personality and Plaintiff in this action, Michael Savage. Plaintiff believed that Talk Radio Network failed to exercise its right to match properly; Defendant disagreed and sent an arbitration demand pursuant to an arbitration provision in the parties' contract. Plaintiffs Dr. Michael A. Weiner and Savage Productions Inc. (collectively "Savage" or "Plaintiffs") filed this action in federal district court seeking various declaratory judgments. The matter was stayed pending arbitration and the parties arbitrated the dispute. On September 27, 2012 the arbitration panel issued its written arbitration award terminating the parties' contract and awarding Savage over $800,000 in withheld compensation.…"

"…I. BACKGROUND. Plaintiff Dr. Weiner, who is professionally known as Michael Savage, is a nationally renowned talk-radio host and star of "The Michael Savage Show," which is syndicated by Defendant Talk Radio Network. (Complaint P 1.) The parties' contractual syndicator/talk show host relationship began in January 2000 and continued thereafter until at least December 2010. (Id. P 8.) The parties entered into another agreement in 2002 ("2002 Agreement"), which was subsequently extended.…"

"…III. DISCUSSION. Talk Radio Network argues that all four grounds for vacatur are present here. It argues that "Savage's threats and intimidation against the AAA establishes the context and motivation for what is otherwise an entirely irrational Final Award." (TRN's Reply at 2.) First, it claims that Savage threatened and intimidated the Panel and corrupted the arbitration process itself, thereby procuring an award favorable to Savage by fraud and undue means. As to the second grounds for vacatur, Savage argues that, as a result of Savage's threats, the AAA pressured the Panel to decide the case in Savage's favor, then the Panel "bowed to pressure from the AAA" and therefore, the Panel lacked impartiality. As to the third ground for vacatur, Talk Radio Network argues that the Panel is guilty of misconduct for failing to provide a reasoned consideration of the "overwhelming evidence" Talk Radio Network submitted to establish its claims. Finally, as to the fourth ground for vacatur, Talk Radio argues that the Panel exceeded their powers by when it awarded Savage money damages and released Savage from the parties' contract. As set forth below, Talk Radio Network has provided no evidentiary support for its claims of corruption, fraud, undue influence, or misconduct, or any reason to conclude that discovery will uncover such evidence.…"

3. Brave New Films 501(C)(4) v. Weiner

United States District Court, N.D. California.June 10, 2009Not Reported in F.Supp.2d2009 WL 1622385

"…BACKGROUND. Defendant Michael Weiner is a nationally syndicated talk show host who performs under the name Michael Savage and hosts the talk show program "The Michael Savage Show." During his two-hour broadcast of The Michael Savage Show on October 29, 2007, Savage made derogatory comments about Muslims, Islam, and the Quran. Shortly after the show aired, the Council for American-Islamic Relations ("CAIR"), a Muslim civil rights group, posted a criticism of Savage on the CAIR website. The posting included more than four minutes of audio excerpts from Savage's October 29, 2007 broadcast. In response to this criticism, Savage filed a lawsuit against CAIR on December 3, 2007 in this Court, Case No. C 07-6076 SI, alleging that CAIR infringed his copyright by posting audio excerpts of the October 29 broadcast on the CAIR website. On July 25, 2008, the Court found that CAIR's use of the broadcast constituted fair use and granted CAIR's motion for judgment on the pleadings on this issue. See July 25 Order, at *13. (C 07-6076 SI, Docket No. 38) In the CAIR case, there was no dispute that the October 29, 2007 broadcast was copyrighted and that Savage owned the copyrighted material. Id. at *4. According to the records of the United States Copyright Office, Savage is the registered copyright owner of the October 29, 2007 broadcast of The Michael Savage Show.…"

4. Brave New Films 501(c)(4) v. Weiner

United States District Court, N.D. California.April 15, 2009626 F.Supp.2d 10132009 WL 1011712

"…Defendant Savage is a nationally syndicated talk show host who performs under the name Michael Savage and hosts the talk show program "The Michael Savage Show." On October 29, 2007, during the two-hour broadcast of The Michael Savage Show, Savage "went on an anti-Muslim tirade, attacking Islam and the Quran and denigrating Muslims as 'throwbacks' who should be deported 'without due process.' " Shortly after the show aired, the Council for American-Islamic Relations ("CAIR"), a Muslim civil rights group, posted a criticism of Savage on the CAIR website. The posting included more than four minutes of audio excerpts from Savage's October 29, 2007 broadcast. In response to this criticism, Savage filed a lawsuit against CAIR on December 3, 2007 in this Court, Case No. C 07-6076 SI, alleging that CAIR infringed his copyright by posting audio excerpts of the October 29 broadcast on the CAIR website. On July 25, 2008, the Court found that CAIR's use of the broadcast constituted fair use and granted CAIR's motion for judgment on the pleadings on this issue. See July 25 Order, at *13. (C 07-6076 SI, Docket No. 38) In the CAIR case, there was no dispute that the October 29, 2007 broadcast was copyrighted and that Savage owned the copyrighted material. Id. at *4. According to the records of the United States Copyright Office, Savage is the registered copyright owner of the October 29, 2007 broadcast of "The Michael Savage Show."…"

"…ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT MICHAEL SAVAGE'S MOTION TO DISMISS. Defendant Michael Weiner, also known as Michael Savage ("Savage") has filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. The motion is scheduled for a hearing on April 17, 2009. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and hereby VACATES the hearing. The case management conference scheduled for the same day remains on calendar.…"

"…The subject of this lawsuit is a video entitled "Michael Savage Hates Muslims" ("the Video") created by plaintiff Brave New Films 501(c)(4) ("Brave New Films"). The Video is one minute and twenty-three seconds long and uses approximately one minute of audio excerpts from the October 29, 2007 broadcast. The excerpts quote Savage telling Muslims to "take (their) religion and shove it up (their) behind," urging listeners to confront Muslims in the "supermarket line," and urging the federal government to deport Muslims. It also advertises a website, www. nosavage. com, and "urges viewers to do something about Savage's intolerance." The Video excerpts the same statements from the October 29, 2007 broadcast that CAIR used in its criticism.…"

5. Original Talk Radio Network, Inc. v. Dial Global, Inc.

United States District Court, C.D. California.May 17, 2013Not Reported in Fed. Supp.2013 WL 12140478

"…Specifically, in November 2010, Courtside sent OTRN host, Michael Savage, a proposed term sheet. (SAC P 102.) On November 30, 2010, OTRN matched Courtside's term sheet, as confirmed by an arbitration panel. (Id.) On December 1, and again on December 14, 2010, OTRN advised Courtside of its decision to match the term sheet and explained there was a contract between OTRN and Savage. (SAC P 103.) Plaintiffs allege that Courtside persisted in its efforts to recruit Savage and spread knowingly false rumors at industry conferences that Savage would soon be under contract with Courtside. (SAC P 104.) Plaintiffs contend that Dial joined Courtside's efforts to recruit Savage. (SAC P 105.) For example, Courtside's proposed term sheet contemplated that Dial would provide affiliate and advertising sales services and that Courtside would cause Dial to agree that Savage's show would be distributed on a regularly-scheduled basis. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that Dial and Courtside maintained contact with Savage after OTRN exercised its right to match the term sheet and after the arbitration ruling. (SAC PP 106-07.) Dial and/or Courtside's activities ultimately gave rise to the end of the relationship between Savage and OTRN. (SAC P 107.)…"

"…Two of Plaintiffs' state law claims pertain to alleged interference with OTRN and TRNE's contracts with their radio hosts Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham, respectively. Claim Thirteen is alleged against Courtside, Dial, WYD, and Compass Media, for tortious interference with contractual relations and conspiracy to engage in the tortious conduct. (SAC PP 185-90.) Claim Sixteen is alleged against all Defendants for various acts that purportedly violate California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. Prof Code S 17200. (SAC PP 202-06.) Two claims within the UCL claim pertain to the host contracts: (1) Paragraph 203(d) states that "Dial and Courtside have interfered with the Syndication Plaintiffs' contractual relationships with hosts" (SAC P 203) and (2) Paragraph 205(c) states that "Dial and Courtside acted unfairly when they spread rumors about and otherwise acted to interfere with the Syndication Plaintiffs' relationships with their hosts." (SAC P 205.)…"

Here are the key details of the case with cites to news stories.

  1. Legal Battle and Victory:
  2. Ownership of His Show:
  3. Immediate Impact:
  5. Next Steps:
In summary, Michael Savage’s legal victory against TRN granted him freedom, ownership of his show, and the opportunity to explore new avenues in the media landscape12. His case is often compared to the landmark decisions that led to free agency in baseball3.