Fox News: Vikings Claim Wells Fargo Trying to ‘Photobomb’ New Stadium

RUSH TRANSCRIPT:
>>> Time to go back in session. Minnesota vikings are suing Wells Fargo. The vikings claim the bank is trying to photo bomb their new U.S. Bank stadium by putting large Wells Fargo signs on a new office tower nearby. They claim the rooftop signs will be bigger and brighter than previously agreed upon. Meaning when the blimp flies over on game day, Wells Fargo will get lots of publicity. Great to have both of you on the real story. Whitney, apparently there was an agreement the vikings had with Wells Fargo, correct? They signed this agreement about specific size of advertising. Who is in the right? Who is in the wrong here? 
>> Wells Fargo is in the wrong. It's the usbank stadium not the Wells Fargo stadium. It's a little out of control. I don't understand why they'd be doing this other than to get the free publicity out of it. If they entered an agreement and are in breach of this agreement, it's a simple law. It hurts the vikings image. They have an agreement with usbank who sponsored the stadium. Wells Fargo can't come in and usurp all the attention and expect it not to be an issue. 
>> Here's the vikings complaint. Wells Fargo started installing mounted and illuminated roof top signs that do not conform to the parties agreement in an effort to permanently photo bomb the iconic stadium. Do the vikings singlehandedly win this? 
>> I agree. I think they do because it seems like there was an agreement. There was a contract between Wells Fargo and the vikings whereby Wells Fargo couldn't put illuminated signs on their buildings in order to get the zoning from the city to be near the stadium. They started to build that. It seems like a straightforward lawsuit where the vikings win. My question would be first, if I were Wells Fargo, why not come up with an ounce of creativity and just paint the words wells Fargo on the roof. The second question I have is, if I'm the vikings, instead of just filing a breach of contract lawsuit, file an injunction. Prevent them from taking these steps to mounting this and they haven't done that. I've read the lawsuit. I've actually reached out to them for comment. They don't have a reason they didn't seek an injunction. 
>> Now I want to get on to this. A New Jersey man suing his wife for causing emotional distress by writing nasty notes on the alimony checks she's sending him including loser, adult child support and blank off and die. Okay. Whitney, come on. She's already paying him alimony. Can he actually sue her for writing in the note thing what she thinks? 
>> First, on behalf of all of your lawyers everywhere, let there be peace on Earth and let it be good with these two individuals, okay? This is ridiculous. It's juvenile. No, he doesn't have emotional distress from this. If he hasn't heard things like that thus far through this divorce then he's lucky. While she's creative, and I ads Meyer that, she looks like a loser, too. They need to let it go. You're going to just have to let it go. Grow up. 
>> They might continue their spats but is there a legal case here? 
>> No. 
>> Yes, actually there is a legal case. Unfortunately, it makes all -- I agree with her. Makes all of us lawyers look bad. If you take an intentional act, then, like she's doing and writing these nasty can sue for emotional harm. I don't think a jury is going to award her -- 
>> It's her check. 
>> It's a legal ploy to get more alimony. What he's trying to do is squeeze more alimony out of her by filing this lawsuit. It won't get dismissed because what she's doing is an intentional act. 
>> She has a first amendment right to say these things. Why can't she say this stuff? 
>> She found out about it from looking on his lawyer's Facebook page so the plot thickens. Let's -- we'll try and end this in a peaceful way since it is Christmas eve. Happy holidays to both of you. 
>> Happy holidays.