At one point, Deshaun Watson was the subject of 27 civil lawsuits stemming from allegations of sexual misconduct. That number dwindled in short order, but two loomed until very recently. 
The Browns quarterback will not see the remaining suits proceed to trial. The final two Watson lawsuits have been dismissed by the plaintiffs, as detailed by Brent Schrotenboer of USA Today. Both were dismissed with prejudice roughly one month ago, an indication a confidential settlement was reached in each instance.
One of the two outstanding cases had Lauren Baxley as its plaintiff. She was the last client of attorney Tony Busbee, who represented all but one of Watson’s accusers. The Baxley case was scheduled to proceed to trial on March 30. The other case’s trial was scheduled to begin on February 18. Instead, both matters are now closed.
“Case is settled,” Buzbee confirmed on Monday. “That’s all I can say about it. That’s the last case so that ends my involvement with Deshaun Watson litigation.”
March of 2021 marked the beginning of suits being filed against Watson. All contained allegations of sexual misconduct dating back to his tenure with the Texans. 24 of those suits were settled confidentially in 2021, with another being withdrawn not long after it was filed. The Texans were themselves the subject of allegations the team enabled Watson’s actions during massage sessions and did not prevent them. Settlements were reached with 30 women.
The possibility of civil litigation loomed when Watson was the subject of trade negotiations, but his market picked up once it became clear no criminal case would be in play. In the end, the Browns won the Watson sweepstakes and paid a trade price highlighted by three first-round picks. As part of the blockbuster move, Cleveland gave Watson a five-year, $230MM extension which was guaranteed in full.
To say the least, things have not gone according to plan. After returning from an 11-game suspension, Watson has dealt with a number of injuries and failed to meet expectations when on the field. In all, the three-time Pro Bowler has played just 19 games across three years as a Brown. Watson is currently recovering from the two Achilles tears which kept him sidelined for 2025.
A path may exist for the 30-year-old to earn the Browns’ starting quarterback position next season. In any event, a release following the 2026 campaign would come as no surprise despite the cap implications of doing so based on the restructures worked out by Cleveland over the course of Watson’s ill-fated Cleveland tenure.
… and the Cleveland Clowns indirectly paid all those settlements
Well played!
So, Jimmy Haslam engages in a multi-million fraud of the customers of his truck stops and gets away with it.
Then, he uses that money that he made by defrauding his own customers (which he got away with) to pay Deshaun Watson who then uses the fraud money to pay the various victims of his sexual abuse (which he also got away with).
Sounds right.
And it’s coinciding with the end of his career.
The judicial system in America is hilarious if you think about it
Fairest one on earth
lol
“These 29 people accused you of setting a business on fire. Oh wait you want to settle $7 million each so they go away and don’t accuse you of anything no more. Ok. Poof. They’re gone. Have a nice day sir “😂😂
Guessing that you can’t name one that is more fair.
Sweden.
5 years ago, probably. No longer the case.
Lmao doesn’t mean much
and you would know that how? from all your experience working in various legal institutions throughout the world?
If the US currently has the fairest judicial system on Earth, then Earth is F—ed.
As someone with plenty of gripes about the current evolution of the American legal system, I’d like to read the specific arguments that it’s so much worse than its counterparts. If there are any that can be applied to the American system uniquely, they’d be pretty relevant.
Come on man. Have you looked around in recent months?
You have to be specific, here. A couple of headlines for you is different than daily interactions for others.
The postulation is not that the American legal is fair in the absolute. It is that it is not the fairest in comparison. If that is the argument to be made, then a case must be presented as to which is fairer and why.
Give me a break. A bought and paid for Supreme Court majority is rubber stamping a federal government breaking the law and violating the Constitution left and right.
That’s, again, an opinion. You give no specific examples. I’ve found that people say that when the Courts simply rule against their preferred outcome. Emotional outrage does not, in any, way, shape, or form substitute for specific fact.
I’m not even arguing that I think that America’s legal system is FAIR. I am asking what system is MORE fair. You have yet to answer that.
OK fine. How on Earth is this judicial system more fair than Sweden or Norway or Germany or New Zealand right now, AK? Just to name a handful of countries that haven’t caved to a fascist, self-dealing regime? Spare me the “my preferred outcome” BS. We’ve got a lawless regime in power and the courts have in various ways enabled it.
Who paid for it? Given that the SC justices were appointed by multiple presidential administrations, it would seem that your complaint is nothing but hot air simply because you don’t agree with the decisions.
Look at the gifts Clarence Thomas took from Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow, who had business before the court, without disclosing them. Leo even directed money to Thomas’s wife’s non-profit. In a functioning system, this would all be known as bribery. Which is true of a lot of things going on.
Both sides are crooked. Wake up
Nothing remotely like what we’re seeing on the right. Trump accepted a $400 million plane from Qatar he’s planning to keep after he leaves office, FFS.
From various legal headlines and how there resolved in my 30 years of life and working with lawyers in the past yes I’d know a decent amount lol
That’s not the legal system, Oof, and you know it. Throwing around the word “fascist” doesn’t make it so. I’m not even going to get into why that term is being misappropriated because I don’t want to even be accused of defending what should be a separate topic. I’ll say this, though: something doesn’t have to be ”fascist” to be bad.
Sentinel, headlines are not day to day examples. Those are not written about, nor are they read about when they are written about, because it’s more noteworthy when bad outcomes occur.
The outcomes are not what makes the system fair on their own. It’s the rules that do that. Oof, what exactly do you find “fair” about legal systems from those countries that you hold over the United States? Is it politics or legals? These are different things. A system operates the same way, irrespective of who holds power. How many legal systems do you, just by being a citizen, get entitled to:
1. Legal representation
2. The right against self-incrimination
3. The right against illegal searches
4. The right against illegal seizure
5. The right to be reminded of several of these rights before questioning
6. Poisonous evidence being inadmissible if obtained from an inherently illegal process
Those are just to name a few, and that’s just in regards to criminal prosecution. In this country, you are also legally innocent until the state proves you guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt. That’s not true in all countries, or even in most countries-including the developed democracies of the world. To casually dismiss these rights-that play out and influence the insane amount of daily procedural rules and opinions that govern and guide the legal process-because of an oft repeated nonspecific sentiment is rather ludicrous.
There surely are inequities in American society, and surely are a ton of improvements and streamlining that can (or should) be made to the American legal systems (let’s also bear in mind that the criminal system is built much differently than the civil system), but you absolutely cannot have any full understanding of how the system works if you can’t even see how protected American citizens are from it. Of course overreach happens, and violations of the system happen. But that’s the very point-they are violations, and that’s not everywhere else.
If you can’t even find another system that guarantees as many rights to accused people, or to relief-seeking people, as the American system does, I would be very happy to see how they stack up. By the way, it’s good to remember that most of the world does not operate like American or European democracies do. These are hardly the only developed or “fair” legal systems in the world, of course, but there is a minority of countries where common people can even get representation at all. Critiquing is one thing, and is very deserved, as that is his systems improve. Non-specific complaint without cognizance of exactly how the system is unique is just repeating what you’ve heard without understanding.
You can’t put your blinders on my face. The judicial system includes the courts. The courts are showing how bad faith actors can manipulate the system. And a standard of law on paper isn’t the same as a standard of law in practice. You think illegal seizure isn’t happening right now? And really? Relief seeking people? People are being detained indefinitely right now despite going through legal asylum proceedings correctly. And so on and so on.
That’s the point. Of course they will happen. Every system has people who violate it. You’re putting the blinders on yourself by pretending that the rules prohibiting such a thing are not a positive. Pretending that violations don’t happen is as ignorant as pretending that they are the intended outcome…or that rules exist to prevent them, and that they represent the majority of cases.
Discussing detention of non-citizens as being unfair in a system built for citizens is strange as evidence of its…fairness? I don’t get that. Are you making the case that a large majority of detainees in any context in America are legal asylum seekers? Because if we’re discussing a system being unfair, we should be discussing the majority of cases that it governs, right-which is more than immigration (which I assume you’re referring to). I hesitate to even explore this point, because it will certainly devolve into a discussion about ICE and its objectives in 2026 (which I hardly wish to even try to defend), which is a political topic and not a legal one. You keep confusing the two. I am telling you that they are different. The system is made up of rules, and these rules are irrespective of who is in power.
I am not, for the second time, arguing that the system is perfect. I am not even arguing that it is fair. I am asking you, again, to provide specifics on another system that you think is more fair, especially in regards to the concepts I mentioned above. You still have not done so. If the American legal system is so obviously unfair in comparison to the rest of the world, what is an example of some concepts that another system does better?
The nature of our Supreme Court has been corrupted and weaponized. Having lifetime appointments is bananas and has allowed for irreparable damage in recent years. And ICE is absolutely a legal subject. They’re being allowed and wildly funded to carry out illegal acts.
And no, our rights and constitution are not just for citizens. That’s pretty important. In part because this country cannot run on citizens alone. It never has. And I don’t just mean immigrants. I also mean foreign workers on temporary visas and even tourism, which has been dramatically damaged by this administration.
And just to go back for one second to “Throwing around the word “fascist” doesn’t make it so.” We’ve got a President enriching himself, targeting his perceived enemies, acting outside the law largely with impunity, and trying to manipulate the election process. These are all clear as day. Beyond that, look at Umberto Eco’s 14 characteristics of fascism and tell me it’s not eerily familiar.
But I also don’t get the sense that either of us particularly wants to drag this conversation out much more.
Can agree on term limits, 100%, also no immigrant can vote until they have shown 5-10 years of faith to the republic
“Faith to the republic”? What? Citizens should be able to vote. Full stop.
Umberto didn’t coin the term fascist, actually. I know that this is a talking point, but not every authoritarian is a fascist. Eco’s points also apply to a few other nationalist ideologies beyond fascism. I feel the same way about commentors’ overuse of the word “Communist” as I do about “Fascist”-it’s a trigger word whose use is designed to evoke an emotional reaction. Fascists were a specific group of people at a specific time. Using the word to make people emotional isn’t granting any more understanding, nor is it helpful to solving any problem.
But that aside.
These are not part of the legal system. You’re talking about the actors occupying those roles. As soon as those people are replaced, your opinion will change. But the system will not. Blaming the system for the actions of the people currently in it shows a fundamental underestimation of all the different parts and rules that make it work the way it does. Immigration is a relatively small part of the legal system as a whole, even though it account for a majority of today’s headlines. Claiming that the Supreme Court is corrupt is easy to do, but it doesn’t invalidate the day-to-day goings on of the many people who are arrested, sued, summoned, indicted, or whatever happens. You’re on focused entirely on the negatives, which are mostly tied to current events, and totally ignoring the positives, which are many. Most people’s interactions with the legal system have nothing to do with a supposedly corrupt Supreme Court or a fast and loose DHS. That’s the most important impact that a legal system has, and the most common one-how it serves everyday people.
I will say again, for a third time, that I am not making the case that the legal system is completely fair. I have numerous criticisms of it myself. I will say, again, that you are providing criticisms and not providing examples of something more fair in another system that you prefer. I don’t think that question will be answered, and I think that I’ve made my point at this point. What I really want is this: there needs to be recognition that, despite its many faults, we have a ton of rights, checks, balances, and privileges in this country that are guaranteed by our system. Recognizing that is not an endorsement of the current government of America as a whole. We have to acknowledge the facts, though, and it would be disingenuous to pretend that only criticism is valid when it comes to anything American. We can acknowledge advantages that we have while still noting areas that we want changed.
Are the checks and balances in the room with us now?
Supposedly corrupt? No, actually corrupt. Thomas has taken millions in gifts from people who’ve had business before the court without recusing himself. That’s corrupt.
The fascism/communism comparison is silly. People in this country call any social safety net communism. Things that in Europe would be centrist. That’s a little different than saying it’s only technically sparkling authoritarianism and not fascism.
While masked goons are occupying American cities, locking people up in inhumane conditions who haven’t even committed crimes, and are aided and abetted by a high court that grants permission to racially profile people and deport people to torture prisons in countries they’re not even from, I don’t want to hear how great our judicial system is.
You still have not given any examples of any legal concepts of a system that is superior. And yes, the “communist” versus “fascist” comparison is apt. They are both terms that have been stretched to include non fitting definitions to promote domestic political interests. It’s exactly the same, for the reasons that you stated. People here do call any societal safety net “communism”. They also call any nationalist or forcible element “fascism”. There’s a reason why people do that, and it’s not for historical accuracy. Also, I’m not sure why the only comparison ever made to “Europe”, as if that standard covers the entire world. Is it only because it fits our narrative, and the rest of the world doesn’t count? Even within Europe, not everything is uniform philosophically. Far from it. Check out Hungary, for example…
You can “not want to hear it”, but that doesn’t change the facts. Headlines do not cover the vast majority of interactions, and the vast majority of interactions have rules specifically designed and followed to give both parties in a legal action similar rights and actions. Sharing evidence, declination of hearsay in criminal cases, the right to cross examination, appeals courts…I mean, we even have probable cause hearing to determine if arrests are valid in most higher level cases. You can ignore it, but it’s not nothing. If you want to blame something, I would encourage you to blame the people abusing the system, not the system itself.
Both sides! Not even close to one sided. Wake up
AK- Yeah that’s the way America should be in a perfect world. The world isn’t perfect. Police fabricate evidence, Criminals take advantages of loopholes in the law to get off scott free, Politicians come along and redraw maps to get themselves lifetime jobs and steal and take bribes ad nauseum, Vote themselves pay raises and take away your benefits Far from perfect. Now we have a guy who wants to change the rules to keep his job til death. And you have athletes who take advantage of celebrity to do whatever they want. If there was an easy answer or one guy who could fix all that I’m sure they would have been found by now. It’s what has killed every great civilization since the beginning of time and will end us too someday. I just never thought I’d live to see it. Now sadly I just might.
The right to be shot in the face if a government appointed goon has a bad morning. These were all things Conservatives warned would happen if we gave government too much power. The punchline is that they are the ones strangely quiet as current government overreach happens all around them.
And how could it be overreach without a system to call it such? Holding the system responsible for actions of actors is incorrect. The proof is in what people say should happen to a government agent who illegally shoots someone, which is that he/she should be prosecuted. How can you prosecute someone for some abuse of office if you don’t have a legal system that allows for that?
The system doesn’t change its rules based on who’s in power. They are still there. They may be arguably ignored or abused by people who are currently in power at any given time, but those people are still subject to those rules. Ignoring them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. We can acknowledge that systems are only as capable as those who enforce their rules, but again, that’s illegal doesn’t mean that the system is bad. It means that you need better people to enforce it.
A system this corruptible is worse than similar systems with more guardrails on conduct and without lifetime appointments. I’ve cited plenty of logic and facts, yet you dismiss me as emotional. Enough.
Specifics, which you haven’t given, are what I asked for. You will find that every system has guardrails, Oof. What they guard is what makes them good or bad. If you think another system is better, then you can present it. You have not, and that is my issue. Thank you for the discussion, though. I respect your points about the downfalls of the American system, whether that may be apparent or not-I just ask that you spend time noting the advantages that it presents, as well.
There are insufficient guardrails on ethical behavior from Supreme Court justices, which combined with lifetime appointment–which, AGAIN, differentiates the US from systems that are similar in most other ways–warps the judicial system. So Thomas can take bribes and Kavanaugh can legalize racial profiling.
And no, sorry, early 2026 is not a great time to ask me to consider all the advantages of the system. Give me a break already.
I think we’ve made our points. Thanks for the discussion.
Browns need to get him one of those Shiatsu mats you see advertised on TV and keep him away from the rehab people and maybe he plays for them this year. They have to pay him anyway, might as well get something out of it. Until he gets hurt again anyway.
Can I sue Watson for the part of my life I’ll never get back while watching him play quarterback horribly?
Meanwhile, Watson can at least say “all of my victims were adults!!!” and find a sliver of moral high ground compared to lots of other people these days.
Great. You hear.
Watson is probably several million dollars poorer this season. Cases that go on this long don’t get dismissed unless a payment has been forthcoming.
Glad to see the $230 million went to good use…
So now Watson can concentrate on the most important thing to him: chasing tail! No, wait, I mean football!