Seaworld Sued Over Mishandling Sesame Street Brand

[Orion-XL200]

https://www.reuters.com/world/seaworld-sued-over-alleged-mishandling-sesame-street-brand-2026-03-12/

 

Mishandling the brand and unpaid royalties. 

[IndyGuy4KI]

So the courts already sided with sesame street one. Probably not looking good for Seaworld with this new filing.

[Orion-XL200]

I'm not positive if this includes the Busch Gardens parks, since technically they are all under the United Parks front and they do have Sesame Street themed rides/attractions.

[jzarley]

^ I’m pretty sure the suit would apply to the entire chain (legal issues typically got rolled up to the corporate level), although there’s probably park-specific violations of the IP licensing they’re citing.

That’s a sad situation—United/SEA/BEC has a long and mutually beneficial relationship with Sesame Workshop. IMHO this is just one more example of the negative aspects of how the current PE control of them has damaged the brand. When I was at SEA, the agreements with Sesame Workshop were taken *very* seriously—even to the point of staffing character interactions (i.e., if Elmo and Abby Cadabby appeared together it was specified that Elmo had to be taller than Abby)

[Losantiville Mining Co.]

The biggest question I have is if United Parks loses the case will the Sesame Workshop pull their licensing agreement, thus forcing UPR to rebrand their Sesame attractions? As we've discussed on here, there aren't a ton of family area IPs out there.

• Six Flags:
  • Looney Tunes, DC, and Peanuts
• Disney:
  • Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, Fox (20th Century Studios and such), etc.
  • Also uses Bluey for some experiences
• Universal: 
  • Dr. Seuss, Marvel (in IOA), Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, Nintendo, Illumination (Minions), How to Train Your Dragon, Dreamworks (the various Shrek properties), Spongebob (at the upcoming Universal Kids Resort) etc.
• Herschend prefers to make custom family areas, though may still have some rights to use Cartoon Network properties.
• United Parks and Resorts:
  • Sesame Workshop

Other potential IPs that could be used:

• Thomas the Tank Engine
• The Wiggles
• Nickelodeon properties (currently in use at Nickelodeon Universe and the American Dream Mall)
• Hanna-Barbera (I think they might be licensed under Paramount at this point)
• Cartoon Network (also under Paramount once they buy Warner Bros. Discovery)
• Peppa Pig (used in the Peppa Pig Theme Park)

 

In a timeline where Sesame Workshop is going to look for a new park chain to partner with, I wouldn't entirely mind seeing Six Flags ditch Looney Tunes and bring in Sesame Street. That would complicate things a little in terms of IP spread, but I think the way they use LT is a little tacky compared to how Peanuts is used. The DC properties are a good thematic bridge into bigger rides for the older kids though. 

[jzarley]

My suspicion is that the law suit will force United to pay then things will go on like always. This isn’t the first time they’ve stopped paying bills just to see how far they could push it—I’ve seen that before (granted, at least then the pandemic could be blamed)

[ReedObsessor]

The private equity ownership is the problem.  Hill Path Capital owns 49.7% of the company, creating significant influence and putting greater focus on share buybacks and driving value.

The ownership structure of private equity means that any losses from this lawsuit will go against United Parks, not against Hill Path Capital.  At least I think that's how it works, but unlike the other cases I've heard about, this isn't a leveraged buyout.  Still, the priority is financial gain for Hill Path, not for United Parks.  Customers don't matter.  Employees don't matter.  Only the shareholders matter.

If the parks go downhill (and they will), possibly even bankrupt, Hill Path Capital may just sell off the remains while keeping the profits they made from stripping apart the parks.  Private Equity has a large (and incomplete) list of bankruptcies on Wikipedia, and I wonder if United Parks could eventually join it.

[DiamondbackFan]

2 hours ago, ReedObsessor said:

The private equity ownership is the problem.  Hill Path Capital owns 49.7% of the company, creating significant influence and putting greater focus on share buybacks and driving value.

They own 56.1% as of March 3rd and are expected to own just under 70% by the time the share buybacks are completed.  They are now in the monetize the real estate phase of extracting value from the company.