This article contains information about suicide. If you or someone you know is struggling with thoughts of suicide, please reach out for help. You can contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 988 or visit their website at suicidepreventionlifeline.org.
The wardrobe stylist for Timothy Ratliff, a main character in season three of HBO’s The White Lotus, likely had no idea that the Duke-clad character would create such controversy.[1] Hailing from a prominent North Carolina lineage, The White Lotus’s “successful” Ratliff’s are a family with allegiances divided between University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University (“Duke”).[2] Jason Isaacs, the actor who portrayed Timothy Ratliff, is shown at one point in the show contemplating suicide after he discovers he is in trouble with the federal government for fraud–all while repping a t-shirt reading “DUKE” sprawled across his chest in the university’s signature color, Duke Royal Blue.[3]
Additionally, with the N.C.A.A. tournament running from mid-March into early April, and Duke being a major contender for the championship at the outset of the games, the screenshot of Jason Isaacs’s character with a weapon to his head has gone viral.[4] Social media users on X dubbed The White Lotus contribution “an all-time meme” if Duke were to lose during the tournament (which they did in the Final Four to the University of Florida’s Gators).[5] The meme sparked fiery social media engagement in part due to the school’s basketball track record, placing a target on the team as one “that many sports fans love to hate.”[6]
The private North Carolina university based in Durham was less than pleased with the television show’s usage of its namesake. Duke’s vice president for communications, marketing, and public affairs, Frank Tramble, stated, “The White Lotus not only uses our brand without permission, but in our view uses it on imagery that is troubling, does not reflect our values or who we are, and simply goes too far.”[7] The university spokesperson claimed that the show’s utilization was particularly problematic due to the sensitive state the character was in. “Suicide is the second-leading cause of death on college campuses. As imagery from the show is being shared widely across social media, we are using our brand to promote mental health awareness and remind people that help is available.”[8] Tramble added that while the university can “appreciate artistic expression and creative storytelling,” a character in the show donning the Duke apparel “creates confusion and mistakenly suggests an endorsement or affiliation where none exists.”[9]
The home of the Blue Devils does have standards for media practices in place. The use of Duke’s name, logos, or other branding in media, including television, must comply with strict guidelines to maintain consistency and protect the university’s identity.[10] Unauthorized or inappropriate use of Duke’s name or symbols is prohibited, and any co-branding involving Duke must be approved by the relevant executive teams.[11] However, these guidelines proved insufficient to adequately prevent The White Lotus from leveraging the Duke brand in a way that is inconsistent with Duke’s messaging.
Despite Duke’s dislike of the endorsement, the “court of public opinion” is where the parties will likely reconcile their differences, as there is not much the school could have done to halt The White Lotus creators from choosing a Duke-branded wardrobe for Isaac’s character.[12] Generally, creators get a lot of protection under the First Amendment for “artistic endeavors” as long as they do not create anything that would be considered “defamatory.”[13] The claim that the scene “creates confusion” about the university’s endorsement does not meet the very high bar of defamation.[14] This stringent legal benchmark, established in 1964 by the United States Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, requires plaintiffs who are public entities to illustrate that the defendant knowingly made a false statement or acted with reckless disregard for its truth.[15]
United States Supreme Court precedent additionally expresses that a statement must communicate a false assertion of fact rather than an opinion or fictional representation for a statement to be categorized as defamatory.[16] Specifically, the Court notes that statements must be capable of being proven false to be actionable as defamation.[17] This principle aligns with the idea that fictional works or opinions, even if unflattering, are generally not considered defamatory because they lack a verifiable falsehood.[18] It is not unusual for brands or companies to object to unfavorable depictions in television and movies.[19] However, their options for recourse are severely limited, and “simply showing some copyrighted work on a t-shirt is fair use” of Duke’s mark and likely does not entitle Duke to a successful claim against Mike White and The White Lotus creators.[20]
To anticipate the potential that the entertainment industry uses university brands in marketing and storytelling, several universities have adopted policies, like strong licensing agreements, that anticipate media collaboration.[21] These licensing agreements aim to protect the university’s reputation, ensure accurate representation, and maintain control over how the institution is portrayed.[22] For example, the University of California, Los Angeles (“UCLA”) has a sturdy trademark licensing program which warrants that UCLA’s name and brand are protected, granting trademark use only after gaining written approval as outlined in UCLA Policy 110.[23] Hereafter, requests for approval must go through the UCLA Marks portal, where proposed uses are reviewed for compliance with UCLA Brand Guidelines.[24] Although UCLA’s licensing agreements are focused primarily on merchandise, such agreements could be extended to include fictional portrayals in television and movies.[25] Additionally, the University of Wisconsin and Michigan carefully govern their trademarks–including logos, slogans, and team names–using intellectual property rights to avert unauthorized use by preserving exclusive rights to safeguard these assets through the use of trademarks and copyrights.[26] On top of that, the University of Alabama requires pre-approval for any use of its registered trademark or other indicia through its Licensing Program, and written approval is required from an authorized media representative before the usage of the trademark for either commercial or unofficial purposes.[27] These types of licensing agreements get ahead of the problem by ensuring that university branding is only used when authorized.
Collaterally to the school’s above, Duke’s lack of a more specific framework ultimately left it reactive (some may even say over-reactive) versus proactive when it came to the use of its brand in The White Lotus.[28] Duke’s absence of a protective framework left the university’s brand vulnerable to broader uses, even when those uses did not align with the university’s messaging; consequently, Duke officials were often forced to scramble to address the aftermath of such brand usage. However, students are not happy with the university’s response, stating that “[b]y choosing to release a statement, Duke has now drawn more attention than it could have desired.”[29] Beyond the student concern that the approach taken by Duke is creating unwanted attention, students also observed that university officials never directly reached out to them with mental-health resources following The White Lotus incident, despite the university’s claim that it was a main priority for them.[30]
To address situations like that which arose from The White Lotus, Duke and similarly situated institutions could strengthen its existing licensing framework and adapt it to include fictional portrayals in media. This addendum could involve requiring production studios to obtain licenses for using Duke’s name, branding, or likeness in fictional works, defining acceptable contexts for portrayal, and guaranteeing compliance with Duke’s values. Through the robust trademark licensing programs employed by institutions like UCLA, which verifies that their branding is used appropriately through partnerships with the Collegiate Licensing Company, Duke and other universities could extend their licensing agreements to cover fictional media portrayals by adding tailored provisions addressing intellectual property rights related to creative works rather than focusing mainly on tangible goods. Additionally, implementing a contextual pre-screening process for scripts or scenes featuring Duke-related imagery–akin to the proactive measures taken by the University of Alabama–could have de-escalated the television show mention, allowing the university to review and assent to characterizations before filming began. The widening of Duke’s already-existing licensing agreement for the depiction of its trademarks could serve as a tool to shield its brand from future depictions that might harm the university’s reputation, such as sensitive topics like suicide or criminal activity. The benefits of this licensing extension could halt unauthorized representations that cause strife with the university’s values, sustain jurisdiction over how its brand is perceived within popular culture, and shift potential controversies into opportunities for promoting its mission and ideals.
If Duke’s The White Lotus incident has taught institutions across the United States anything, hopefully it is this: do not cry foul play about the drama unfolding when the resort doors were left wide open.
[1]Jenna Lemoncelli, White Lotus Went Too Far by Featuring Duke T-Shirt in Graphic Scene, School Says, N.Y. Post (Mar. 27, 2025), https://nypost.com/2025/03/27/entertainment/white-lotus-went-too-far-by-featuring-duke-t-shirt-in-graphic-scene-school-says.
[2] Chyna Blackmon, Unpacking Some Unanswered Duke vs. UNC ‘White Lotus’ Questions After the Finale, News & Observer (Apr. 7, 2025), https://www.newsobserver.com/entertainment/tv-movies/warm-tv-blog/article302951514.html.
[3] Lemoncelli, supra note 1.
[4] Shahana Yasmin, Duke University issues complaint about being featured in The White Lotus: ‘Goes too far, Independent UK (March 28, 2025), https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/white-lotus-jason-isaacs-suicide-duke-university-b2723136.html.
[5] Florida Finishes No. 1 in Final AP Top 25 Men’s Basketball Poll, ESPN (Apr. 9, 2025), https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/44588846/florida-finishes-no-1-final-ap-top-25-men-basketball-poll.
[6] Scott Cacciola, Duke University Wants No Part of ‘The White Lotus,’ N.Y. Times (last updated Mar. 31, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/26/style/white-lotus-duke-crimes-suicide.html.
[7] Natalie Oganesyan, Bosch Responds to Usage of Appliance Company’s Blender in ‘The White Lotus’ Season 3 Denouement, Deadline (Apr. 7, 2025), https://deadline.com/2025/04/bosch-blender-the-white-lotus-season-3-1236362900.
[8] Id.
[9] Yasmin, supra note 4.
[10] Duke University, Media Policies, Duke News, https://news.duke.edu/policies (last visited Apr. 10, 2025).
[11] Id. Approved uses of Duke’s mark typically align with institutional goals and activities, such as research, health care, education or university-sponsored events. Id.
[12] Duke Is Taking on The White Lotus Over a T-Shirt – But Not in Court, The Fashion Law (Mar. 27, 2025), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/duke-is-taking-on-the-white-lotus-over-a-t-shirt-but-not-in-court.
[13] Hannah Miller & Janet Lorin, ‘White Lotus’ Goes Too Far With Duke Trademark, University Says, Bloomberg (Mar. 26, 2025), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-25/-white-lotus-goes-too-far-with-duke-trademark-university-says.
[14]Alex Berkman, Duke’s ‘White Lotus’ Blunder: Sometimes Less Is More, Duke Chron. (Apr. 4, 2025), https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2025/04/duke-white-lotus-less-is-more.
[15]Alex Turi, Actual Malice: Definition, Examples, and Why It Matters for Defamation Law, Minc Law(July 31, 2024), https://www.minclaw.com/actual-malice-definition-examples.
[16]Adam Jacob Wolkoff, A Privilege to Speak Without Fear: Defamation Claims in Higher Education, 46 J.C. & U.L. 121 (2021), available at https://www.nacua.org/docs/default-source/jcul-articles/volume46/4_defamationclaimshighereducation.pdf?sfvrsn=16b346be_4.
[17] Id.
[18] Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990).
[19] Cacciola, supra note 6.
[20] Id. Beyond defamation, trademark infringement is another legal framework under which Duke could seek relief; however, trademark law protects against consumer confusion but does not cover reputational harm from artistic storytelling and, therefore, would likely be equally ineffective. Pratheepan Gulasekaram, Policing the Border Between Trademarks and Free Speech: Protecting Unauthorized Trademark Use in Expressive Works, 80 Wash. L. Rev. 887, 894 (2005); Cacciola, supra note 6.
[21] Licensing FAQ, Univ. of Tenn. System, https://licensing.tennessee.edu/licensing-faq/.
[22] Liam Knox, Brand Protection or Censorship?, Inside Higher Ed., Apr. 14, 2023, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/free-speech/2023/04/14/brand-protection-or-censorship.
[23] Know the Rules for Using the UCLA Marks, UCLA SOLE, https://sole.ucla.edu/file/ddced818-10ba-46b8-8f5d-c97ca931c5ab.
[24] Id.
[25] World Intellectual Property Organization, Character Merchandising, WO/INF/108, at 24 (Dec. 1994), https://www.wipo.int/documents/d/copyright/docs-en-wo_inf_108.pdf.
[26] University Intellectual Property Implications in Name, Image, and Likeness Deals, Frieser Legal, https://frieserlegal.com/university-intellectual-property-implications-in-name-image-and-likeness-deals/ (last visited Apr. 10, 2025).
[27] Copyright, Univ. of Ala., https://www.ua.edu/copyright/.
[28] Berkman, supra note 14.
[29] Id.
[30] Id.