Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsNo. A federal judge first barred publication of the actual sex-tape material or excerpts, but dissolved that narrow order on September 22, 2025, and denied a preliminary injunction. The Estate of Hulk Hogan and the other parties later settled, and the case was dismissed. A dated settlement announcement said the documentary was available digitally, though that does not establish its current availability.
Who sued and what did they seek?
Nicholas Bollea, known as Nick Hogan, and Terry McCoy filed the case on September 2, 2025, as asserted co-personal representatives of the Estate of Terry G. Bollea, Hulk Hogan. It was therefore an action brought on behalf of the Estate, not a personal lawsuit by Nick Hogan alone. The plaintiffs sought emergency court orders against Bubba the Love Sponge Clem and others over promotion and publication of Video Killed the Radio Star: The untold story of the Hulk Hogan sex tape scandal.
As summarized in the court orders, the Estate alleged that Clem’s public statements and the documentary would violate an earlier settlement agreement, and that the release would infringe the Estate’s copyright and trademark rights. Those were allegations, not findings that violations had occurred. The court’s orders describe the claims and procedural record.
What did the judge order?
September 4: a limited temporary restraint
The court’s September 4 temporary restraining order (TRO) barred publication of the alleged copyrighted tape itself or excerpts. It did not broadly stop promotion of the documentary or public comment: the judge declined immediate relief on those broader requests and deferred remaining preliminary-injunction issues for further proceedings. The order required a $500,000 security bond. The September 4 order sets out the restraint and bond.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstall#1 Best Overall
September 22: TRO dissolved and preliminary injunction denied
After a September 17 hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction and Woltz Films’ motion to intervene, the judge dissolved the TRO and denied the Estate’s request for a preliminary injunction. The written order assessed the film’s limited use of excerpts as the record then presented it, considering their amount and relationship to the documentary’s subject.
The judge wrote that the limited use “makes it overwhelmingly likely that the documentary’s inclusion of the excerpts constitutes a ‘transformative’ use and that it constitutes fair use under 17 U.S.C § 107.” That was a preliminary assessment in deciding whether to grant an injunction, not a final trial ruling resolving every claim or definitively deciding ultimate liability. The September 22 order contains the court’s analysis.
Did the lawsuit stop the documentary?
The TRO briefly restricted publication of the tape or excerpts, but it was later dissolved; the court did not issue the requested preliminary injunction. A report published October 24, 2025, reproduced a Woltz Films announcement saying the Estate, Clem and Woltz Films had settled and that the documentary was available to purchase or rent through Apple iTunes, Amazon Prime and Google Play. That report establishes what the announcement said at that time, not whether the film remains in any platform’s current catalog. Wrestleview’s October 24 report covered the announcement and stated availability.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How did the case end?
The docket records a joint settlement notice on October 10, 2025, followed by an October 13 order dismissing the action without prejudice. The order allowed 60 days for the parties to seek stipulated final action or ask to reopen the case for good cause; the docket later records the return of the cash bond. The docket record documents the settlement notice, dismissal and bond return.
Rank #3
The public materials cited here do not disclose the settlement’s full terms. They do not establish whether it imposed continuing confidentiality, distribution or conduct provisions, so those terms should not be inferred from the dismissal or the dated availability announcement.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- Premium Perks: Exclusive Offers
- Free Shipping: USA Delivery
- Member Discount: 10% Off Bookstore Purchases
- Co-Created With: Courtney Hermann
- Author's Credentials: Story Ideas & Directing Techniques
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
