On the Pulse…The Blitz Is Coming: Pranks, Perception and the Risk of Draft Day
In April, the high-stakes world of the NFL Draft took over the airwaves. Millions were made and fumbled away as each round unfolded. Scouting reports were dissected, 40-yard dash times debated, and the patience of each player was tested. Beyond the fanfare stood a cautionary tale for civil defense lawyers. In litigation, as in football, perception, reputation, and outside interference can blindside the best-prepared team.
Shadeur Sanders and his father, Deion, commanded headlines throughout the college football season and into the draft. However, it was Jaxson Ulbrich, son of Falcons defensive coordinator, Jeff Ulbrich, who stole a moment of spotlight both infamously and immaturely. After obtaining a private draft-day phone number, Jaxson prank-called Sanders, whose draft stock had unexpectedly fallen. He claimed that Sanders would be drafted by the Saints but would have to wait. While it was quickly revealed that he had been “trolled,” this event signifies how easily misinformation can spread and how pranks can carry real consequences. The NFL fined Jeff Ulbrich $100,000, and the Falcons organization was fined $250,000.
In civil defense cases, surprises, misinformation, public manipulation, and ambush tactics are commonplace. Plaintiff lawyers, while mostly ethical, can sometimes push the envelope. According to the ABA, almost 300,000 lawyers are publicly disciplined for ethical misconduct each year. Therefore, a video that paints your client in unfavorable light, one that it is selectively edited, like Shannon Sharpe alleges, or one that is outright misleading, may become the order of the day. Once public, the reputational harm spreads faster than the truth can catch up. Headlines follow, juries are tainted, and the reputation of your client can plummet overnight. Insurers then start asking hard questions.
The call to Sanders wasn’t just a joke. It could be actionable. In Florida and many other jurisdictions, the actions of Ulbrich could possibly be considered tortious interference with a current or prospective business relationship. This tort occurs when a third party intentionally disrupts a known business relationship, thereby causing damages. More specifically, the elements of the tort for tortious interference with a business relationship includes: (1) the existence of a business relationship or contract, (2) knowledge of the business relationship or contract on the part of the defendant, (3) an intentional and unjustified interference with the business relationship, and (4) damages. See Howard v. Murray, 184 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). An action for tortious interference with a prospective business relationship requires a business relationship evidenced by an actual and identifiable understanding or agreement which, in all probability, would have been completed had the defendant not interfered. See Ferguson Transp., Inc. v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc., 687 So. 2d 821, 822 (Fla. 1996).
Although numerous explanations for his draft slide exist (i.e., his lack of a real agent, combine opt-out, alleged poor interviews, etc.), Sanders could argue that the prank compounded doubt, shifted teams’ perceptions about drafting him, and thereby contributed to his slide. The same dynamic applies in tort litigation. When perception turns, the liability profile of a company can collapse, even without wrongdoing.
In 2005, Anna Ayala alleged that she found a human finger in her chili at a Wendy’s in California. After a month-long investigation, it was determined that the incident was a hoax orchestrated by Ayala. Unfortunately, Wendy’s suffered work cutbacks as business fell as much as 50% in some areas.
In 2020, rumors began on Reddit that Wayfair was allegedly involved in child trafficking. The claims were that their throw pillows and storage cabinets were a front for these nefarious activities. Social media ran with this information, complete with photographs, screen shots, and celebrity statements. The rumors were a hoax.
In 2011, not even the Golden Arches was safe. A photo was captured and spread on social media that provided that, as an insurance measure due, in part, to a string of robberies, certain customers would be required to pay an additional fee of $1.50 per transaction. This, too, was a hoax, and McDonald’s stated: “This is, unfortunately, an example of how rumors can out speed the truth. Over the last 48 hours, we've been tweeting and striving to clarify that this is a hoax.” Nevertheless, the public was slow to believe McDonald’s statement, and the hashtag #SeriouslyMcDonalds trended.
The law is catching up to the age of virility and meme culture. However, as the aforementioned warnings demonstrate, hoaxes can have impacts that far outlive the “joke.” It can be a draft-day prospect losing millions or a client losing trust; in all scenarios, narrative controls and perception matters.
Whether it is Sanders waiting for a life-changing call or a business defending its decades of good will, the threats aren’t always head-on. Sometimes, the blitz is coming from your blindside.
Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 2, June 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.