Erin Andrews Awarded $55 Million in Peephole Video Lawsuit

Erin Andrews Peephole Marriott Lawsuit
AP Photo/Mark Humphrey, Pool

Fox sportscaster Erin Andrews was awarded $55 million on Monday in her lawsuit over a secretly recorded video that captured her naked, the Associated Press reports.

Andrews sought $75 million from the owner of the Nashville Marriott at Vanderbilt University, where she was staying in 2008 when the incident occurred, and Michael David Barrett, the stalker who booked hotel rooms next to her in Nashville and Columbus, Ohio, and secretly recorded (via a peephole) and released videos of her naked.

Barrett, whom the jury found to be 51% at fault, has to pay more than $28 million. Nashville Marriott owner West End Hotel Partners and former operator Windsor Capital Group, which were found to be 49% at fault, have to pay more than $26 million.

The owners of the Tennessee hotel had argued that Barrett was solely to blame for the crime. Andrews, however, maintained that someone affiliated with the hotel gave out her room number to Barrett and placed him near her.

Barrett was sentenced to two and a half years in prison after admitting to stalking Andrews, altering hotel room peepholes and taking nude videos of her.

The Fox Sports reporter and “Dancing With the Stars” co-host broke down in tears when jurors announced the verdict.

Andrews testified in the early days of the trial that she suffers from depression as a result of the video, which she said she knows people are still watching.

“This happens every day of my life,” Andrews said. “Either I get a tweet or somebody makes a comment in the paper or somebody sends me a still video to my Twitter or someone screams it at me in the stands and I’m right back to this. I feel so embarrassed and I am so ashamed.”

Andrews’ father, Steve Andrews, who also testified at the trial, said that his daughter hasn’t been the same since the incident.

“She’s afraid. She’s afraid of crowds, afraid of people. She doesn’t trust anymore,” Andrews said about his daughter.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 29

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Propecia XL says:

    White woman privilege. Mmmhmm.

  2. John says:

    Can somebody please video peephole me in a hotel room? I could use $55 million any day. Erin Andrews is now the highest paid actress in the world.

  3. What happened to Erin was disgusting: the verdict is reasonable. Terry Bollea (Hulk Hogan) deserves the same in his ongoing lawsuit against Gawker, who did essentially the same thing though — for some reason that isn’t clear — nobody went to jail over it.

  4. Katie says:

    So one of the jurors asked for her autograph after the verdict was given and as they were leaving. Doesn’t that say it all? She is well known from Dancing With the Stars and sports. I thought her testimony was excessively dramatic this long after it had happened and I really doubt she needed therapy. Jen Lawrence had a video leaked of hers and of course was angry but not excessively traumatized. Why would Andrews subject herself to a trial if it were that painful, unless she thought it would be settled out of court?

  5. did you watch the video?

  6. scallywagy says:

    Granted we can agree that Erin Andrews was indeed violated and deserved some kind of compensation BUT would she have gotten this type of money if she wasn’t tv personality, good looking, and a tabloid media warrior of causes? Isn’t this how the Kardashians made it?

    What if Erin wasn’t particularly telegenic, overweight, a minority, or even a man whose privacy was violated? How much would she have gotten then? How much would anyone have even cared?

    • evil says:

      no, it’s not how they made it you lowlife, and don’t try to hide your scumminess with ‘muh muh men minoritiesd muh she be preetteh muh’

  7. Leon says:

    Who didn’t see this coming when you saw her turn on the waterworks that put the bellagio and Disneyland fountains to shame

  8. Dennis G. says:

    Women are making it too risky to deal with women.

  9. kodakfuji says:

    And yet another jury goes bat shit crazy in awarding “damages”. Someone gets murdered and what are the chances that a jury will award an amount like that. Cute, check. Blonde, check, White, check. Broke down on the stand, check. Yep she punched all the buttons for the big ticket award. Now don’t get me wrong. The guy was a despot for doing what he did, but he got caught, convicted, and served his time in jail. At that point shouldn’t they be done and moving on? But lawyers came knocking on somebody’s door and again the courts are tied up.

  10. GozieBoy says:

    Erin must be doing high fives and fist bumps that her act with contrived tears (after all these years) were successful in letting her cash in to such a unreasonable level. What hotel can possibly be responsible for this? Ridiculous. The performance of her lifetime, since I’ve seen her on the sidelines and it’s never been impressive.

    • John says:

      Agree. Yes, Erin Andrews is the victim here and we all should sympathetic for her. But her testimony was flat out an “F” grade acting job, totally phony and unconvincing. Not to be insulting but without makeup Erin Andrews’ face looks totally like a dude.

  11. ken says:

    I wonder how the payout works, does she get the full amount at once or installments? Not really a fan of hers but I’m glad justice was served.

  12. Tommy Gunn says:

    I’m surprised previous commentors on here are making disparaging remarks about this poor woman. Is it jealousy, or just plain depravity? @Ed Gruberman – what is the point, you ask?! Besides setting a financial deterrent for future pervs, did you not read the part that states he was also sentenced to jail time?
    @Katie – just because you “don’t see how the money will help her recover” doesn’t mean that it won’t at least help her pay for therapy or enable her to take extended time off. She is totally within her rights to be suing for money. It’s called punitive damages, you might want to look that up. Thankfully this ruling sets a precedent against twisted stalker scumbags like this who not only want to record a peep show for themselves, but subsequently ruin a persons dignity and reputation forever by posting it online for the world to see.

  13. Ed Gruberman says:

    I’m guessing the stalker guy doesn’t have that type of money so what is the point? Actually since the Marriott is a franchise, I’m guessing they don’t either.

  14. Mike. P. says:

    7 grammar/spelling errors throughout this poorly-written piece.

    1. Second paragraph is a run-on.

    2. Second paragraph “who booked a hotel rooms”, change to “who booked hotel rooms” or “who booked a hotel room”.

    3. Fourth paragraph – Barrett, not “Barrett’s”.

    4. Fifth paragraph – either “for” or “after”, not both.

    5. Seventh paragraph – It’s not “Jurors”, it’s “Erin Andrews”. Jurors don’t testify.

    6. Seventh paragraph – “of the trial”, not “on the trial”.

    7. Ninth paragraph – “who also testified at the trial, said that….” or “who also testified, stated that his daughter…”, not “who also testified, at the trial said that…”.

    This is on a quick read. Terrible editing from such a prominent newspaper, especially front page columns.

    • c o says:

      Shut up and go teach an English class.

    • I hope you are better at PR than your reading skills and understanding of business entities.

      The hotel company Marriott is not part of this lawsuit, the franchisee groups are, West End Hotel Partners and former operator Windsor Capital Group.

      • Mike. P. says:

        I don’t know whether you’re talking to me or just hitting reply to respond to another poster. Variety fixed the article by correcting all of the edits that I submitted to them. They actually fixed the article within 10 minutes of my submission of the edits. What you read 3 hours after my post is the article edited after my submission. If you would’ve read the article in its original state, you’d agree that it was a clusterfuk of grammar/spelling errors.

    • Mike. P. says:

      Thank you for the edits!

  15. Katie says:

    I don’t see how the money will help her recover what ever trauma she has experienced. I think she should have lost the case against Marriott when she stated under oath she has to check a hotel room over thoroughly ever since then, to me her admittance that it is impossible to be sure a hotel room is totally secure. Surprised the jury missed that. People who have lost a limb due to medical error are not awarded this amount of money.

    • Katie, you and many others misunderstand the point of these large awards. They are not meant to reward the victim. They are meant to punish the perpetrators. The award has to be large enough to sting a company with the financial assets of Marriott so it puts systems in place to protect this situation from happening again to anyone else.

      • Bill says:

        It may be “easy” to do, but in this case someone went up to the desk and said they were a friend of Andrews and were given a room nearby. That maneuver alone likely strikes fear into almost every woman who ever needs to travel alone on business and is against just about every hotel’s rules.

        I’m truly disgusted by many of the comments here disparaging Andrews or worse, saying she benefited from the publicity so there was no loss here. Seriously?

      • Carl White says:

        If you have ever actually stayed at hotel, it is pretty easy to easy to figure out what room someone is in without the hotel making a mistake.
        For example, places like this have bars and restaurants that are open to the public. Pretty much anyone can walk in to a hotel, they do not ID at the door.
        Erin checks in, he follows her in to the elevator, gets out on the same floor, sees what room she goes in to. Then he goes to registration, hello, I need a room. Hey, last time I was here, I was in room 548 and I then signed a giant business deal, I apologize for being superstitious, but can you put me in room 548.
        No sir, sorry, that room is booked, but I can put you in room 547.
        Damn, that sucks, I guess what room I am in does not matter, fine, I will take 547.
        Did they actually truly prove the hotel made a mistake?
        What this man did was horrible, without a doubt, but $55 million? Plus, like any scandal, she is a bigger celebrity now because of all the media. Sympathy pays well in celebrity dollars.
        Hate to be cynical but in this society if every time you are humiliated or embarrassed or made to feel less a human being or stupid or are used for others gain or experience trauma do to human beings and corporations being shallow or even evil, then, please, will a lawyer please contact me, I am guessing I am due about a billion dollars.

      • lars says:

        I understand the reasoning behind the large reward system but do not understand why the effort of holding Barrett 51% at fault requiring him to pay $28 million dollars. First, he will be in prison for 2.5 years. Second, when he is released I am sure he will have lost most everything he had. So she will never see that money. So it would have made more sense to give Barrett more prison time and charge the hotel a larger money sum. Guess it does not work that way.

More TV News from Variety