7 Truly Bizarre Things People Have Sued Over

Looking Too Much Like Michael Jordan

Basketball Hall of Famer Michael Jordan is a highly recognizable figure. He’s also the celebrity doppelganger of an Oregon man named Allen Heckard, who certainly wasn’t a fan of the resemblance. In 2006, he filed suit against MJ claiming that their similar appearance made it impossible for Heckard to live a normal life.

Heckard sued not only Jordan but also Phil Knight, the co-founder and former CEO of Nike — the shoe brand that helped establish Jordan as a widely known public figure. The filing claimed that, “Whatever public functions he [Heckard] attend people are continally [sic] on a daily base harassing him of looking like Michael Jordan.” 

MJ’s lookalike requested $52 million in damages and $364 million in punitive damages from both Jordan and Knight, though he later dismissed the lawsuit without providing a reason. A Nike spokesperson speculated that Heckard probably “realized he would end up paying our court costs if the lawsuit went to trial.”

Returning a Donated Kidney

From 2005 to 2009, Long Island residents Richard Batista and Dawnell Batista found themselves engaged in a bitter divorce suit. The sticking point was a strange demand that Richard made as part of the suit: the return of a kidney he had donated to his wife in 2001. Claiming his wife had begun having an affair within two years of getting the kidney transplant, he asked for either the kidney to be returned or for $1.5 million in compensation. 

In July 2009, the Nassau County Supreme Court denied the request, with arbiter Jeffrey Grob stating it’s illegal to place a monetary value on human organs. The court ruled, “While the term ‘marital property’ is elastic and expansive … its reach, in this court’s view, does not stretch into the ethers and embrace … human tissues or organs.”

Texting During a Movie on a Date

In 2017, Texas resident Brandon Vezmar took a woman named Crystal Cruz to a movie on a date. He paid for two tickets for them to see Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2. But Vezmar took issue with Cruz texting on her phone during the film, and filed a petition in small claims court against Cruz seeking $17.31 — the cost of her ticket — in compensation.

According to the filing, Cruz “activated her phone at least 10-20 times in 15 minutes to read and send text messages … adversely affecting the viewing experience of Plaintiff and others.” It went on, “While damages sought are modest the principle is important as Defendant’s behavior is a threat to civilized society.” Cruz later agreed to pay Vezmar the money in exchange for him dropping the lawsuit.

Suing God Over the Weather

In 1969, a lawsuit was filed against God by Phoenix resident Betty Penrose, whose home had been destroyed by a lightning bolt nine years prior. According to the claim, God was taken to court over “careless and negligent” control of the weather, with Penrose seeking $100,000 in damages (nearly $900,000 today).

Despite Penrose living in Arizona, the lawsuit was filed in California because a week before the lawsuit was filed, musician Lou Gottlieb transferred ownership of his 31.7-acre California ranch to God. Penrose’s lawyer filed the lawsuit quickly upon hearing that news, claiming the ranch was an asset they could sue God over. 

The case made it far enough that Penrose and her lawyer went to court, whereas God never showed, which would’ve won Penrose the case by default. However, Gottlieb’s attempted transfer of land to God was ruled invalid, as was Penrose’s lawsuit.

Suing Yourself

In 1993, Robert Lee Brock was arrested and sentenced to prison for breaking, entering, and grand larceny. Two years later, while incarcerated at the Indian Creek Correctional Center in Chesapeake, Virginia, he brought a lawsuit against himself for the events on the night of his arrest. He sued himself over claims that he’d gotten drunk and violated his own civil rights.

Brock stated, “I partook of alcoholic beverages in 1993, July 1st, as a result I caused myself to violate my religious beliefs … by my going out and getting arrested.” He sought $5 million, though Brock never expected to pay the money himself. Instead, he requested the state pay those damages on his behalf, arguing that he couldn’t afford to do so since he couldn’t earn an income while in prison. 

As you may imagine, the case didn’t make it far, and Judge Rebecca Beach Smith ultimately dismissed the lawsuit as frivolous.

Monkey Selfies

In 2011, photographer David Slater was capturing macaques in the jungles of Indonesia when one curious monkey that later came to be known as Naruto took one of Slater’s cameras and used it to snap a selfie. Slater later published the delightful images in a book, which caught the attention of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The organization sued Slater on behalf of Naruto, claiming the monkey owned the copyright for any selfies it had taken.

The lawsuit was formally filed in 2015 based on arguments over whether copyright acts extend to non-human animals. After two years of litigation, PETA and Slater settled out of court, with the latter agreeing to donate 25% of his future book revenue to Indonesian charities that protect macaque habitats. 

Though PETA was content with the settlement, it’s likely the case wouldn’t have been won in court, as the U.S. Copyright Office specifically states that “a photograph taken by a monkey” cannot be copyrighted.

The Cooking Time of Macaroni and Cheese

In 2022, Florida resident Amanda Ramirez filed a lawsuit against the Kraft Heinz Company over the advertised prep time for microwavable cups of Velveeta macaroni and cheese. Ramirez sued over what she thought was false and misleading packaging, as the box claimed the food could be “Ready in 3 ½ Minutes.” The lawsuit noted that the 3.5-minute period only referred to how long the mac and cheese had to be microwaved, and that the estimate omitted the several additional minutes necessary to open the container, stir, and wait for the mixture to thicken.

Ramirez sought $5 million in damages, though Kraft never took the lawsuit seriously: The company dismissed the case as “frivolous” in a statement to CNN. The courts sided with Kraft, and on July 27, 2023, Judge Beth Bloom dismissed the lawsuit for its lack of standing. In her dismissal document, she also noted there was no proof that the claimant had “even attempted to cook the product.”