ST. LOUIS — A decide has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a 19-yr-outdated chess grandmaster who alleged his occupation was ruined by allegations that he experienced cheated.
Very last year, Hans Niemann sued previous planet winner Magnus Carlsen and the on line chess corporation Chess.com. He was seeking $100 million in damages for slander and libel.
In a lawsuit filed in federal courtroom in St. Louis, Niemann also accused Carlsen and Chess.com of violating antitrust legal guidelines by merging on-line taking part in platforms and refusing to enable him participate in on them.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Fleissig identified Niemann’s antitrust statements experienced no benefit. She also dismissed libel and slander statements for the reason that she reported she didn’t have jurisdiction to oversee them, The St. Louis Put up-Dispatch noted.
The lawsuit arrived soon after Niemann stunned the chess entire world by defeating Carlsen at the Sinquefield Cup previous 12 months in St. Louis, ending Carlsen’s earth-document unbeaten streak. Carlsen accused Niemann of cheating and withdrew from the match.
Niemann reported that immediately after the dishonest allegations were being produced, tournaments banned him, matches were being canceled, and reliable chess universities wouldn’t retain the services of him.
The lawsuit contends Carlsen, generally thought of one of the best chess champions in the planet, was seeking to protect his status as the “King of Chess” and to full a offer with Chess.com to purchase Play Magnus for approximately $83 million.
Carlsen’s legal professional, Craig Reiser, said Niemann’s lawsuit was an “attempt to recover an undeserved windfall” and “chill speech by strategic litigation.”
Chess.com was pleased the controversy, which stunned the chess globe, was ending and “are grateful that all parties can now focus on growing the video game of chess,” explained Nima Mohebbi and Jamie Wine, of the business Latham & Watkins.
Niemann’s lawyers stated they strategy to pursue the libel and slander statements in point out court docket.
