By Kate Ragusa
On March 19, 2026, Hall of Fame first baseman Frank Thomas filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against Nike, Fanatics, and the Chicago White Sox, alleging the unauthorized use of his name, number, and identity in connection with the sale of team merchandise. The complaint arises out of the White Sox’s “City Connect 2.0” uniform line and centers on jerseys bearing “THOMAS” and the number “35,” which Thomas claims were designed, marketed, and sold without his consent or any underlying licensing agreement.
Thomas, who played for the White Sox from 1990-2005 and was inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 2014, alleges that the defendants engaged in a coordinated effort to manufacture and distribute merchandise that capitalized on his identity. According to the complaint, Nike, Fanatics, and the White Sox operated collectively to design, produce, and sell the jerseys at issue, which were made available through online platforms and retail locations, including in-stadium stores. The jerseys prominently feature both Thomas’s name and his longtime uniform number, elements the complaint characterizes as uniquely identifying him. The complaint further alleges that these jerseys were displayed in official team retail spaces and marketed alongside White Sox and Nike branding, reinforcing the association between the product and Thomas’s career with the organization.
The filing identifies specific instances of the alleged use, including online product listings and in-store displays featuring the jerseys, as well as promotional efforts across digital and commercial channels. It asserts the inclusion of Thomas’s name and number was not incidental, but rather a central component of the product’s design and market strategy. By pairing those identifiers with official team marks and league-affiliated branding, the complaint alleges that the defendants created merchandise that traded on Thomas’s identity while presenting the product as part of an authorized team-issued line.
The claims are brought under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, which provides individuals with the exclusive right to control the commercial use of their identity. The statute broadly defines identity to include name and likeness, and other attributes that serve to identify a particular individual. Thomas’s complaint relies on this principle, alleging that the combination of his name and number, particularly in the context of White Sox branding, unmistakably points to him and functions as a commercial use of his identity.
Central to the complaint is the allegation that no contract existed authorizing this use. Thomas asserts that, at all relevant times, he retained control over the commercial exploitation of his identity and that the defendants proceeded without obtaining consent or providing compensation. The complaint also emphasizes that Thomas’s identity carries independent economic value, referencing his career achievements and longstanding association with the White Sox, as well as his trademarked “Big Hurt” moniker. It further alleges that the defendants profited from these activities through revenue, royalties, increased marketability, and increased goodwill, while Thomas received no compensation.
In addition to the statutory claim, Thomas asserts unjust enrichment, arguing that the defendants retained benefits obtained through the unauthorized use of his identity in a manner that would be inequitable to allow. The complaint alleges that the defendants knowingly accepted and retained those benefits despite the absence of any licensing agreement, and that such retention violates principles of equity and fair dealing. The complaint further seeks a range of remedies, including compensatory damages, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. It also names a number of additional entities, including retailers and licensing intermediaries, as respondents in discovery, suggesting that the scope of the alleged conduct may extend across the broader distribution chain and involve additional parties.
The complaint does not challenge the use of team marks or branding generally, rather focusing on the inclusion of specific identifiers that, in combination, allegedly function as a direct reference to Thomas himself. The extent to which those identifiers are treated as part of team-controlled intellectual property, as opposed to an individual’s protected identity, will likely shape the analysis going forward in the proceeding.
The case remains at the pleading stage, and the defendants have yet to respond to the allegations. As filed, the complaint asserts that the use of Thomas’s name and number in connection with the sale of merchandise constitutes a commercial use of his identity under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act and was undertaken without his consent.
Ragusa is concluding her 2L year at Tulane Law School in New Orleans. This past year, she served as the Chief Marketing Officer for the Tulane Sports Law Society and a Junior Managing Editor for the Sports Lawyer Monthly Newsletter. Ragusa is spending her second summer as a Summer Associate with Sidley Austin in the Houston office, and this coming fall, she will be a co-Senior Managing Editor of the newsletter.
