Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh

Why no mention of his H3H3 debacle?

Not confident enough to write it myself atm, but it's really surprising there is no mention of H3H3 or Ethan Klein. It is definitely a notable part of his life. Cat-that's-fat (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of h3h3 lawsuit

Reliable sources exist to the extent that we should make a one line mention of the case in the body of this entry. @Throast has cited WP:PROPORTION in reverting my edit. Discuss. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Readers expect a certain structure from Wikipedia articles. We don't litter articles with one-line paragraphs just because we can.

Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, I believe it's in the spirit of neutrality not to include unresolved civil suits (where people throw potentially unfounded allegations at each other) unless they've been highly publicized through secondary coverage. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure there isn't a little bit of WP:OWN on your end here? Given your repeated mentions on the podcast? Honest question. I have a decent amount of experience here, and it strikes me as a little odd that you think my single line addition contradicts any element of MOS in any real way. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I will ignore your casting aspersions and focus on content. I linked the relevant MOS subsection discouraging us from writing one-line paragraphs. I repeat, ongoing court cases are inherently non-neutral. Unless there's an abundance of coverage, there's no good reason to include them. Once the case is concluded and RS cover said conclusion, I'd support inclusion. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a fake wikipedia page

Please look into real page for Ryan. Either way this is a fake website. 2600:1702:DBA:B810:5544:76E5:B44C:A9F2 (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Trimming details for NPOV

Hi all, this article appears to focus on several of Kavanaugh's companies (as well as a company unrelated to Kavanaugh) in excessive detail. As I understand it, this is inappropriate for a BLP, according to WP:COATRACK, WP:RELEVANCE and WP:NPOV. In addition, much of the content here does not adhere to WP:RECENTISM nor WP:OR.

The following are a few examples of where this article could use some cleanup:

• The "pre-bankruptcy" and "post-bankruptcy" subsections of Relativity Media.
• The third paragraph of the Proxima Media section can be summarized in 1-2 sentences.
• The Triller section is unrelated to Kavanaugh himself, and is more appropriate as the following sentence in the Proxima Media section: In 2019, after Proxima Media acquired Triller, Kavanaugh co-founded Triller Fight Club, a subsidiary focusing on pay-per-view boxing events.

I would be happy to propose new neutral language with a focus on Kavanaugh as an individual to align this article more closely with Wikipedia's WP:BLP guidelines. I have some ideas of my own to lay out and discuss with the community. Thank you Francine72790 (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Okay, sure. Feel free to propose said edits. (And, you've done nothing wrong so far, but reminder not to use AI to write said requests.) Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, below you'll find proposed language that merges the "Relativity media" "Proxima media," and "Triller" under one subsection titled: "Media companies," and summarizes Kavanaugh's role in these companies. I trimmed much of the Relativity Media content, as the company has its own page. This refocuses this article section on WP:BLP, rather than the extensive company details. I am open to further discussion with the community to utilize Wikipedia's best practices for this page, and have thus reopened the request.

Revision proposal

Media companies

Kavanaugh co-founded Relativity Media with entertainment executive Lynwood Spinks in 2003 with the following terms: when Relativity arranged the financing to produce a movie, Kavanaugh's company would be paid $1 million by the studio, and Kavanaugh would be credited as executive producer. Kavanaugh held Albert Einstein as his hero and, while at Relativity, created a Monte Carlo-based model to predict the probability of a given film's commercial success. He was known to write long equations on white boards at investor meetings. Although Kavanaugh frequently cited the model's accuracy to 85%, a source close to Elliot Associates, one of the company's principal (and earliest) lenders, estimated it to be much lower. Some investment banks and industry executives also cast doubt on the model's efficacy.

In 2011, Kavanaugh was named "Showman of the Year" by Variety and placed 22nd on the Fortune 40 Under 40 list.

In July 2015, Relativity filed for bankruptcy and in 2016, Kavanaugh stepped down as CEO. In 2017, Kavanaugh launched the film production company, Proxima Media and was in negotiations with a potential Hong Kong-based partner for funding. Due to the escalating trade war between the US and China, the deal did not go through. In 2019, Kavanaugh announced a cryptocurrency to be used for fractional investing in the platform's slates, and he and Elon Spar formed Entertainment Stock X (ESX), with Spar as CEO. In June, Spar and Kavanaugh traded accusations of fraud and breach of contract, and they settled the case out of court before the filing was completed. Spar then released a public statement saying that his earlier characterization of the company was inaccurate.

References

Thank you Francine72790 (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Per the request at my talk page. I do not agree with the proposal to expunge most of the coverage of Kavanaugh's involvement in the aforementioned companies and replace it with the text proposed above. Whilst I agree that some of the corporate detail is excessive (and therefore there may be some legitimate WP:DUE concerns), it focuses on Kavanaugh's management style which is not easily separable from the companies themselves, and much of it is essential to establishing Kavanaugh's notability. As for criticisms that the article does not comply with WP:RECENTISM, WP:COATRACK, WP:RELEVANCE, this would only stack up if the coverage of Kavanaugh in reliable sources predominantly focused on other aspects of his life. Francine has not demonstrated that it does. The proposed text would not be bringing balance to the article, but would be simply downscaling the coverage of Kavanaugh's eventful corporate career. The article appears to be mostly well sourced, so unless it is misrepresenting the sources I think the allegation of WP:OR is unfounded. I note that Throast is responsible for roughly 50% of the article's authorship and therefore as the principal author is the editor best placed to address any content concerns with the article. I would recommend that Francine approaches Throast with her concerns; I would be very reluctant to remove an established editor's work at the behest of a paid editor with limited viewable experience on Wikipedia—and I say that not out of prejudice to Francine, but out of respect to Throast. Betty Logan (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Betty Logan. I’ve declined to comment so far because the subject of the article, who the paid editor is working on behalf of, has antagonized editors including me on and off Wikipedia in the past. This has included making legal threats and putting bounties on my real-world identity for adding information Kavanaugh perceives to be reputationally harmful. He continues to accuse me of “hacking” this Wikipedia article on his public LinkedIn profile. While I agree that the article could use a trim here and there, especially where it veers too much into company history rather than himself personally, I think the attempt to erase large portions of the article reflects Kavanaugh’s effort to launder his reputation. The article is meticulously sourced; I reject any allegations of OR pending concrete examples. If future reviewers would like my input, I’m happy to provide it. Otherwise, I would prefer not to engage with the requester directly. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Betty Logan and Throast, my goal here was to approach the article with fresh eyes, and my suggested language above was just a starting point. I know there's some contentious history here, but was not personally involved. I'm more than happy to work with editors here and hope we can find some way to collaborate, but I respect your decision to distance yourself should you so choose.

I agree that press coverage of Kavanaugh is deeply intertwined with his media companies, and that is why I took concerted effort in my suggested revisions to make this article more balanced. I tried to keep what I understood to be the most relevant content for a BLP, and in doing so, also removed positive coverage and included less flattering details.

You'll note that Relativity Media has its own Wikipedia article and most of this information is covered there in detail. While I understand that my proposed language appears as a dramatic trim, the current Relativity Media and Proxima Media subsections are quite extensive, potentially redundant, and less relevant here. For example, the "Pre" and "Post bankruptcy" subsections seem inappropriate on an individual's page, especially when a company article exists, as well as the Triller subsection, whose content is almost completely irrelevant to Kavanaugh.

As I said above, I consider this a first draft to get the conversation going. Since we all seem to agree that there is an over-focus on Kavanaugh's companies, perhaps we can use that as a starting point of collaboration to improve the article? I'd be happy to propose new language if that would be helpful, and would appreciate any input you have to hit the right balance. Thanks again Francine72790 (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Betty Logan and Throast. Following your points, I've given this additional thought and am closing this request. I'm posting something new for the community to review based on this discussion, and of course appreciate all further thoughts you might have moving forward. Thanks again. Francine72790 (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Updated Career section

The discussion above established that there is a bit too much emphasis on company details for a BLP in this article. I have reread the sourcing and taken a stab at proposing an updated version of the Career section where the focus is Kavanaugh himself. I have trimmed the detail due to WP:RECENTISM and WP:DUE, sticking to the facts in the sources while working to eliminate narratives that aren't explicit. I'd appreciate the community's collaboration in bringing NPOV to the overall tone of this article:

Career

Early career

After leaving UCLA in the late 1990s, Kavanaugh started a venture capital firm. Several investors, including Jon Peters, sued Kavanaugh alleging fraud, and the suits were settled out of court. A separate suit found Kavanaugh negligent, awarding the plaintiff $7.7 million, which went unpaid, as the firm was on the verge of bankruptcy.

Media companies

Kavanaugh co-founded Relativity Media with entertainment executive Lynwood Spinks in 2003 claiming to have a Monte Carlo-based, risk-assessment model to reliably predict a film’s potential earning. Banks and hedge funds, looking for investments outside of the stock market, invested heavily in Kavanaugh’s selected films. He utilized slate financing, which bundled together groups of films to spread the investment risk. Kavanaugh also worked out a formula in which every time a movie was produced through Relativity’s financing, the studio would pay his company and investors in the slate $1 million. Kavanaugh himself would receive executive producer credit to capitalize on the association with the films.

Hailing Albert Einstein as his role model, Kavanaugh was known for writing equations on white boards at investor meetings with hedge-fund bankers and producers. In 2005 and 2006, Kavanaugh brokered slate deals Gun Hill Road I and II, which financed 36 movies with Universal Pictures and Sony Pictures. Kavanaugh advertised heavily in the trade press, where he was known for bringing Wall Street money to the studios. However, many investors lost money or received poor returns in several of his deals. In 2007, Kavanaugh sued his partner, Spinks, after a falling-out. The case was settled out of court.

After befriending Elliott Investment Management partner, Jesse Cohn in 2007, Kavanaugh closed two deals with the firm a year later. Elliott bought 49% of Relativity for about $100 million, which Kavanaugh used to expand the firm, including a deal with Netflix. Kavanaugh also brokered the Beverly 2 slate deal with Universal, in which Elliott agreed to initially invest $500 million and provide partial funding for Universal movies over 7 years. That same year, Kavanaugh sued Citibank when it tried to change the terms of a five-year slate deal between Relativity and Sony Pictures; the case was settled out of court following Citibank’s countersuit.

In 2011, Kavanaugh was named Variety’s "Showman of the Year," and placed 22nd on the Fortune 40 Under 40 list.

Kavanaugh had claimed his model had an 85% accuracy rate, though by 2010, the algorithm had proved unprofitable. Following Elliot trying to retake control of its Relativity investment in 2011, Kavanaugh attempted an investment from JPMorgan Chase, but the bank did not proceed. However, Ron Burkle negotiated a $50 million loan deal with Kavanaugh through his firm, Colbeck Capital, and over time, expanded his interest in the Relativity, reportedly buying out Elliot’s stake in 2012. In 2016, Kavanaugh stepped down as CEO of Relativity, while continuing to hold a majority of the company’s equity. In 2018, Adam Fields sued Kavanaugh for wrongful termination, and an arbitration judge awarded Fields $8.4 million in damages.

In 2017, Kavanaugh created film production company, Proxima Media, and was in negotiations with a potential Hong Kong-based partner for funding. Due to the escalating trade war between the US and China, the deal did not go through. In 2019, Kavanaugh announced a cryptocurrency to be used for fractional investing in the platform’s slates, and he and Elon Spar formed Entertainment Stock X (ESX) with Spar as CEO. The two settled the case out of court before the filing was completed, and Spar released a public statement saying his earlier characterization of the company was inaccurate. After Proxima acquired a majority stake in Triller in 2019, Kavanaugh co-founded subsidiary, Triller Fight Club.

References

Thank you Francine72790 (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

 Note: Mostly done; retained 2 paragraphs at end of section. Good job archiving sources--that made reviewing accuracy of text easier, especially for the sources behind a paywall. I didn't delete the two paragraphs at the end of the section, but they may need to be trimmed. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Grand'mere Eugene, thank you for taking the time to work on this article. Regarding your comment about the last two paragraphs at the end of the section, I thought that since the accusations traded between Spar and Kavanaugh were settled, due to WP:RECENTISM, it does not belong in the article. The entire paragraph can at least be summarized in a sentence or two. The Triller section does not seem relevant to Kavanaugh's BLP. The described merger was dissolved, and the information is largely company-focused. Perhaps moving: In 2021, Kavanaugh proposed a potential merger with SeaChange International to take Triller public but the merger was dissolved, and by 2022, Kavanaugh was no longer a board member to the earlier paragraph that says "Kavanaugh co-founded Triller Fight Club" may be appropriate, but I do question the relevance of including a dissolved merger.

References

I am happy for your input and to discuss further. Thanks again Francine72790 (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The legal spat between Spar and Kavanaugh in and of itself has been discussed amply in secondary sources. The Hollywood Reporter highlighted a defamation case brought by Kavanaugh involving the dispute as raising novel legal questions, for example. I argue therefore that the dispute as well as the actual content of the dispute is relevant and worth discussing in as much detail as it's currently being discussed in the article. Things being settled doesn't automatically make them less relevant. If coverage in secondary sources is sufficently in-depth, issues can and should be included regardless of whether they've been settled. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Additionally—and I don't mean any disrespect to Grand'mere Eugene—the article is frankly all over the place now. It's gotten less readable with subsections removed, and some parts are disjointed or lack necessary context that was there before (e.g. "Shortly after the bankruptcy filing...", without any prior mention of the bankruptcy filing). Certain passages have been removed that I feel the COI editor has not provided sufficient (or any) reason for. I will restore these passages and others for overall cohesion in the coming days. I was going to stay out of the review process, but I cannot in good conscience leave the article in its current state. Any further challenges to content should be made on a case-by-case (sentence-by-sentence) basis. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Throast, You're right, I think I uploaded the wrong version of edits on my last effort to pare down the company-related info and keep biographic info. I take no umbrage with your quite valid disgust/criticism! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)