Former WWE star and attorney David Otunga has discussed the Andrade contract situation with WWE and determined if he could win the case in court.
Otunga, on his YouTube channel, took a look at his WWE contract from 2017 and confirmed that the one-year non-compete clause existed even then. He assessed the various clauses in the contract and deemed them to be vague.
"However, it is quite vague, and that's the problem with a lot of the clauses in this contract, is there's so much to be left open to interpretation. And there's just a lot of vague clauses in here," he said. "So, the contract is a lot of contradictions, and this is one right here. The whole independent contractor part just doesn't seem legally enforceable to me, if I'm being honest."
WWE typically terminates talent with a paid 90-day non-compete period, which allows the talent to earn a salary but prevents them from joining rival companies. Otunga feels this isn't an act of kindness on WWE's part, but a smart move to avoid legal disputes over the harsher one-year unpaid non-compete clause that is present in the contract.The former WWE star thinks that a judge would likely rule in Andrade's favor if he takes WWE to court, as a person can't be prevented from earning a living, according to him.
"Inthis situation with Andrade, he has beengiven a one-year non-compete that is notcompensated. If he were to take this tocourt, I think a judge is very, verylikely going to rule in his favor andjust throw out that entire clause of thecontract because you can't preventsomebody from earning a living for anentire year," he said.
He added that the jurisdiction of the contract is Connecticut, which he feels is "business-friendly" toward WWE. This works in the company's favor and adds to the already skewed nature of the contract, which primarily benefits them.
