Lawsuit Against the Keith Haring Foundation Dismissed

Lawsuit Against the Keith Haring Foundation Dismissed

A lawsuit against the Keith Haring Foundation over its refusal to authenticate certain artworks claimed to be by Keith Haring has been dismissed. The Foundation also tried to block exhibitions of works it didn’t believe were genuine. This case is one of many involving disputes over whether artworks—especially modern ones—are authentic. Though this case is now over (unless appealed), it’s unlikely to be the last of its kind.

Background

Keith Haring died in 1990. He left all his artwork, along with the rights to his name and art, to the Keith Haring Foundation. Because Haring’s art is valuable, forgeries are a real issue. Most auction houses won’t sell a Haring without authentication from the Foundation, and the Foundation’s approval is often enough.

The Dispute

Elizabeth Bilinski says she owns over 100 Haring artworks. In 2007, she asked the Foundation to authenticate 41 of them, submitting them through an art dealer. The Foundation quickly rejected them as fakes. Even after Bilinski gave more information, the Foundation stood by its decision and told her to stop claiming the works were by Haring.

She later tried to sell the works through Sotheby’s and Gagosian Gallery, but they refused. Eventually, the Foundation agreed to take another look. Around this time, another company, Guernsey’s, said the works were likely genuine and from the mid-1980s.

Exhibition and Lawsuit

In 2013, the works were shown in an exhibition in Miami. Just two days after the show opened, the Foundation filed a lawsuit and asked the court to block the show. The lawsuit called the artworks forgeries. A press release followed, reinforcing the Foundation’s mission to fight art fraud—though it didn’t mention Bilinski or her works by name.

Because of the lawsuit and the attention it brought, Bilinski claimed she lost sales opportunities. She sued the Foundation for damages.

Court’s Ruling

This week, the court dismissed all of Bilinski’s claims. Her lawsuit said the Foundation and others were working together to keep her paintings off the market, which she argued violated antitrust laws. But the court didn’t agree. It said she didn’t show clear evidence of an illegal conspiracy, and simply refusing to authenticate her works wasn’t enough to support her claim.

The court also noted that all the named defendants were part of the Foundation, and only one other art dealer, Jeffrey Deitch, was mentioned by name. It said Bilinski’s claims were too vague to give the defendants fair notice of what they were being accused of.

Comparison to Other Cases

The court compared this case to a 2009 case against the Andy Warhol Foundation. But it said the two were very different—mainly because there isn’t an official catalog (catalogue raisonné) of Haring’s works, while there is for Warhol. The judge also pointed out that the Haring Foundation stopped authenticating art in 2012, before some of the events in question happened.

Other Legal Claims Dismissed

The court also threw out claims under trademark law and the Lanham Act, saying there was no link between the Foundation’s press release and any actual sale of the paintings.

Bilinski’s remaining claims were based on state laws, mostly tied to the negative publicity from the Miami show. Federal courts usually don’t handle these unless federal claims are involved—but here, the court chose to go ahead and dismiss those too. That means Bilinski can’t try again in state court.

Free Speech Protections Applied

The Foundation’s defense used what's known as the "litigation privilege," which protects anything said in legal documents, even if it might hurt someone’s reputation. The court agreed this applied to the lawsuit itself.

As for the press release, the court applied a similar rule called the “fair reporting privilege.” Because the release didn’t directly call Bilinski’s works fake, and just talked generally about stopping forgeries, the court ruled it was protected too. It said a reasonable person wouldn’t assume the press release was talking specifically about her paintings.

Conclusion

This case was very specific to the Miami show and the press release that followed. It likely won’t set a big legal precedent in art authentication disputes. The antitrust argument was creative, but without solid proof of a conspiracy, it didn’t hold up.

In the end, this may encourage more foundations to stop authenticating artworks altogether, since doing so can lead to legal headaches—just like this case did for the Haring Foundation.

seen in Art Low, Sullivanlaw Blog.