Wells Fargo, Vikings meet in court over stadium 'photobombing' lawsuit - Bring Me The News

Wells Fargo, Vikings meet in court over stadium 'photobombing' lawsuit

Author:
Publish date:

The Minnesota Vikings and Wells Fargo met in court on Friday to sort out the claim the bank is "photobombing" U.S. Bank Stadium.

The Vikings last month filed a lawsuit against the bank, saying the signs on the roof of the new Wells Fargo Towers near to the $1 billion stadium sponsored by rival U.S. Bank are an attempt to "permanently photobomb" its image.

FOX 9 reports the NFL franchise said it has a contract with Wells Fargo which stipulates the bank can only use roof signs no longer than 56-feet on the surface of the roof, but claims Wells Fargo is now "constructing mounted and illuminated signs."

This is in violation of the agreement, with the Vikings saying the signs would be prominent on any aerial images of the stadium, such as those from a blimp during Vikings games.

The case is being heard in the U.S. District Court and on Friday Judge Donovan Frank heard arguments, the Star Tribune reports, and repeatedly asked both parties why they could't "sit down and work it out?"

Frank has told both sides he expected to issue his decision within the next two weeks, but said he would like to see all parties attend a mediation session that includes the City of Minneapolis and the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority, the newspaper notes.

A Wells Fargo spokesperson told MPR the bank is pushing ahead with the new signs, saying they are within the agreement they made with the Vikings, saying: "We are proud of our $300 million community investment in the historic downtown east neighborhood and we remain hopeful that the court will rule in our favor, so that we can display the rooftop signs as planned."

However, a Vikings spokesperson told the news organization: "We had an agreement, in writing, both parties, Wells Fargo and the Vikings signed, and they violated it, and we have photos and you saw in the presentation today — a clear violation of the agreement."

Related

Next Up