I disagree that this is just a litigious suit. Issue of control of a celebrity's likeness is a very big thing. And the WPT agreement is so broad, they want total control before you can play in the tournament. It overreaches in my opinion.
A big issue came up when the WPT Championship was held at the Bellagio a few months back. Jesus Ferguson could not play in it, because he had alreday sold his likeness to Atari (the company that makes the poker video game he appears in). Because Atari owned the rights to his likeness, Ferguson was unable to sign the Release, thereby preventing him from playing in the tournament.
I don't disagree with the legal basis of the suit, but from a business perspective, I think the Jesus Fergusons of the world can make a decision to either sign on with Atari or to play in WPT. If enough people opt to sign with Atari (or with whomever) the WPT will suffer in ratings. This will put pressure on them to drop the process of requiring releases.
I don't disagree that they have a case, I just think that market forces would solve it more efficiently.
Bitching about WPT policy but still playing in their tournaments makes as much sense as bitching about the price of gasoline but still buying a gas-guzzler. If you don't like something, you, as a consumer, can change it.
Random thoughts from a lawyer, an accountant, a commodities trader, an ex-Marine and a WSOP Main Event money finisher that don't know as much as they wish they did...