Gunther Steiner takes legal action against Haas F1

Guenther Steiner's legal battle with Haas F1

Former Haas F1 team principal Guenther Steiner has launched legal action against his former team, alleging that the team has failed to pay him commissions owed from 2021 to 2023, as per his employment agreement.

The court documents, filed in Mecklenburg, North Carolina, also claim that Haas F1 continues to use Steiner's name, image, and likeness for promotional material and merchandise without his authorization and without compensating him for the same.

Unpaid commissions

According to the court papers, Steiner argues that Haas F1 violated his employment agreement by not paying him commissions due for the years 2021, 2022, and 2023.

The exact amount owed has been redacted from the public documents, but it is speculated that these commissions could be linked to sponsor deals Steiner brought to the team.

The court filing states,

"Haas F1 chose not to renew Mr. Steiner's Employment Agreement. This was its right. But Haas F1 has done what it has no right to do and refused to pay Mr. Steiner [amount redacted] owed under his Employment Agreement."

Unauthorized use of name and image

Steiner further alleges that Haas F1 continues to profit from his brand and image despite his contract termination.

The court documents highlight Steiner's popularity and the valuable exposure Haas F1 gained through his appearances in the Netflix series "Drive to Survive."

"Haas F1 has no right to use Mr. Steiner's name, image, and likeness or to exploit them in any form of media after the termination of his employment,"

the court filing states.

"Haas F1 has not compensated Mr. Steiner for its unauthorized use of his name, image, and likeness."

Legal Proceedings

While the specifics of the commissions and the amount owed have been redacted from the public court documents.

Steiner's legal action raises questions about the contractual obligations of teams towards their employees, particularly in the lucrative world of Formula 1.

The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future disputes involving the use of an individual's image and likeness for promotional purposes after their employment has ended.