Judge Rules Against NCAA in Players' Antitrust Class Action, Sets December Trial
A group of student-athletes challenged the NCAA's limits on student-athlete scholarships as anti-competitive.
March 29, 2018 at 04:09 PM
3 minute read
A federal judge on Wednesday ruled against the National Collegiate Athletic Association in a class-action lawsuit challenging the organization's limits on compensation for student athletes.
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California denied the NCAA request to toss the case and set a trial for Dec. 3 in the multidistrict litigation. Member conferences, such as the Pac-12, Big Ten and Southeastern Conference are also defendants in the case.
The plaintiffs, a class of current and former student-athletes in Division 1 football and men's and women's Division 1 basketball, argue that the NCAA's limits on scholarships and benefits that student-athletes can receive as compensation for their athletic services violate antitrust law.
Wilken wrote in her opinion that the plaintiffs had met their burden of showing that the NCAA's rules produce anti-competitive effects.
Hagens Berman's Steve Berman, who represents the plaintiffs along with Winston & Strawn's Jeffrey Kessler and Bruce Simon of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, called the ruling a “homerun win.”
“A key part of Judge Wilken's order is that the court recognizes that our alternative of individual conferences being allowed to decide what is in the best interest of the student-athletes is a viable option, and we will be allowed to show that to be the case at trial,” Berman said in a statement.
In a statement, the NCAA said the decision “recognized, as other courts have for decades, that principles of amateurism and student-athlete well-being are critical to college sports.”
“We look forward to proving at trial that the rules are essential to providing educational opportunities to nearly half a million student-athletes,” the statement said.
In 2009, former University of California at Los Angeles basketball player Ed O'Bannon led a class action antitrust lawsuit challenging the organization's rules preventing men's football and basketball players from being paid for sale of licenses to use their images, names or likenesses. In 2014, Wilken ruled against the NCAA in that case, but the Ninth Circuit narrowed her ruling on appeal.
The NCAA argued the decisions in the O'Bannon case, which ultimately settled for $208 million, foreclosed the claims brought in the current litigation. In her ruling Wednesday, Wilken dismissed those arguments.
“Because Plaintiffs raise new antitrust challenges to conduct, in a different time period, relating to rules that are not the same as those challenged in O'Bannon, res judicata and collateral estoppel do not preclude the claims even of those Plaintiffs who were O'Bannon class members,” Wilken wrote.
The judge said that the plaintiffs produced “undisputed evidence” that student-athletes would be offered greater compensation and benefits during recruitment but for the challenged rules.
Wilken is set to evaluate the plaintiffs proposed alternatives to the rules, such as allowing the individual conferences to set the compensation limits, at the December trial. A pretrial conference is set for Nov. 13.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
Apple Files Appeal to DC Circuit Aiming to Intervene in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readState Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250