Unfortunately for Sandmann, his lawyer’s complaint here suggests to me that Zaid guessed right and the settlement was for nuisance value. How else would Stelter’s retweet of Zaid’s comment violate the confidentiality clause?
Also, speaking as a plaintiff’s lawyer, it is usually the defendant, not the plaintiff, who insists on and cares about a confidentiality clause in a settlement. Plaintiffs’ lawyers like to advertise their settlements when they can. Usually, if the plaintiff’s lawyer is the one who wants to keep the settlement confidential, it’s because the settlement was for a disappointing amount.
Also, the remedy for breach of a confidentiality clause is usually rescission of the settlement, which a plaintiff would not want if the settlement was for a desirable amount. It would be pretty hard for a plaintiff to prove any damages caused by a defendant’s breach of a confidentiality clause in a settlement. Perhaps there was a big liquidated damages provision, but I doubt it.
I notice that you didn't address any of those particalur factors in your post.
Or, contrarily, is is possible that enforcing the non disclosure would be to ensure that the other pending law suit defendants do not get a peek at the amount in order to bolster their negotiation position.
If the other defendants know how much CNN settled for they then know what the ceiling is that they can use to negotiate from.
Assume the settlement was for $100,000,000. The other defendants now know that that is potentially the ceiling and they can then negotiate for a lower settlement.
Thus your potential scenario is, just that, potential, it is not considering the full scope of the legal tactics being employed by Sandmann’s attorney because that is unknowable. You are providing your opinion, without proof, (to paraphrase the left’s media hacks).
To paraphrase Tuco Ramirez: “There are two kinds of defendants my friend. Those who settle for nuisance value, and those who don’t. CNN don’t.”
Or so I expect. Settling for nuisance value is sometimes a good economic decision, especially when a business faces a situation unlikely to regularly reoccur. But a multi channel, worldwide, TV news agency, is going to have disgruntled subjects of news stories on a daily basis. Sending the message that CNN will settle for nuisance value is an invitation to be sued multiple times a week, which would be very expensive indeed. So, Stelter is either wrong, or he disclosed facts CNN very much does not want disclosed.
I’m not saying it was even 7 figures, but I bet it was multiples of $25,000.