NCAA Student-Athlete Name, Image and Likeness

Hagens Berman’s managing partner and founder, Steve Berman issued the following communication regarding the filing of an objection by attorney Michael Hausfeld and his firm:
“The Hausfeld filing is ironic. In O’Bannon the judge rejected Hausfeld’s damage analysis, and at the end of the day, they recovered nothing for the athletes. He then tried to become lead counsel in Alston, and that attempt was rejected.
“Alston is the case that went on to open the door for NIL rights and for this settlement, and it was led by Jeff Kessler and myself. This is sour grapes, unsupported by an expert’s evidence.
“Judge Wilken has overruled objections to our expert’s damage methodology, so it is solid evidence and supports the notion that the settlement has recovered over 60 percent of damages. Hausfeld’s average recovery is under 10 percent. As for revenue sharing going forward, Hausfeld fails to deal with the fact that the athletes will now receive over 50 percent of athletic revenues – the same as the pros. Hausfeld offers no evidence that this is not an excellent and just result.”

On Sept. 26, 2024, Hagens Berman and Winston & Strawn filed an amended complaint and settlement for approval. Upon reviewing the initially proposed settlement agreement, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken requested clarifications to the deal, which attorneys responded to, including a supplemental brief outlining the updates.

“Major changes such as these to a multibillion-dollar industry do not happen quickly nor simply. Hagens Berman has been challenging NCAA athlete compensation rules for 20 years, and we fully expected that things would become increasingly complex as we neared the endzone,” said Steve Berman, managing partner and co-founder of Hagens Berman. “We remain grateful to the court’s careful review of this monumental change coming to college sports.”

Read the press release »
Read the amended complaint »

Attorneys at Hagens Berman and Winston & Strawn submitted the terms of the settlement seeking preliminary approval from the federal judge overseeing the three NCAA NILs class-action lawsuits. The July 26 filing includes details regarding athlete payouts under the settlement agreement, as well as information about next steps, claims and more for college athletes.

Hagens Berman and Winston & Strawn LLP announced jointly with the NCAA, Big Ten, SEC, Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC a landmark antitrust class-action settlement poised to radically change the economic model of college sports and provide billions of dollars in backpay damages and tens of billions of dollars in future revenue-sharing to college athletes. Read the full press release »

Hagens Berman’s managing partner, Steve Berman, issued a statement regarding the firm’s proposed settlement in In re College Athlete NIL Litigation. Read more »

On Nov. 3, 2023, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken certified three classes of college athletes regarding damages in the case, meaning, the NCAA faces monetary loss in the lawsuit, not just court action restraining its antitrust behavior. Damages would be based on payments college athletes would have received if not for the NCAA’s restraints. These revenues include those from three areas: television broadcasts (referred to as BNIL in the court’s 52-page order), video games and other revenue sources.

“Because Plaintiffs have met their burden to show that the issues of antitrust injury and damages can be resolved with common proof on a classwide basis, and given that it is undisputed that the central question of whether the challenged rules violate Section 1 is also capable of resolution with common proof on a classwide basis, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden to show that the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) is met with respect to the proposed damages classes,” the order reads.

Read the order »

A judge certified a class of at least 184,000 NCAA college athletes, allowing their claims to proceed in a historic antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA regarding payments for athletes’ name, image and likeness rights, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman. read more »

Download Order »

Attorneys representing Attorneys representing the proposed class of NCAA college athletes have filed a motion to certify the lawsuit’s group of athlete plaintiffs, applicable to thousands of athletes. The motion seeks what would likely be hundreds of millions of dollars in damages including damages for a share of the billions of dollars in TV revenue defendants’ broadcast deals generate, including the Big Ten Conference’s new record-breaking $7-billion-dollar media agreement that was just announced in August. Plaintiffs also seek damages that class members would have received for use of their NILs in video games including the popular EA Sports NCAA titles. The motion also requests additional damages related to other lost NIL opportunities.

The motion defines four classes: an Injunctive Relief Class that consists of all Division I athletes who competed or will compete from June 15, 2020 to the date of the judgment in the case, the Football and Men’s Basketball Class (consisting of such players in the Power Five Conferences plus Notre Dame who have played since June 15, 2016 to the date Judge Wilken would certify the class), the Women’s Basketball Class (consisting of women’s basketball players in the Power Five Conferences who competed during the same timeframe) and the Additional Sports Class which includes all other Division I athletes who received NIL compensation after the NCAA permitted certain third-party NIL deals on July 1, 2021 and also played their sport in prior seasons when NIL compensation was completely prohibited.

Thousands of college athletes have taken advantage of the NIL opportunities now available to them since the NCAA loosened its restrictions on July 1, 2021. These deals include partnerships with clothing brands, beverage companies, restaurants, cell phone companies, video game platforms, and other national and local retailers and have amounted to massive payoffs for the athletes who were previously completely prohibited from engaging in any commercial NIL activities. Female athletes in particular have seen enormous success. LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne, for example, has signed some of the biggest endorsement deals in the country and University of Miami basketball players, Haley and Hanna Cavinder, have already earned nearly $2 million. And this new college athlete NIL market is only expected to grow in the future. As just one example, multinational consumer goods company, Unilever, has already announced plans to spend $5 million over the next five years in partnerships with college athletes promoting the deodorant brand Degree.

The motion also seeks to appoint Hagens Berman as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. Read the motion »

“…if Judge Wilken certifies classes that are in the ballpark of those proposed by the players, the ramifications would prove enormous. It would mean the NCAA and its member schools face a lawsuit that could conceivably claw back billions of dollars and redistribute that money to current and former athletes.” — Michael McCann, Sportico

“House is occurring in a transformative era for college sports and the law. Last year, in Alston v. NCAA, the U.S. Supreme Court held the NCAA is subject to ordinary antitrust scrutiny.” — Michael McCann, Sportico

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken upheld antitrust claims on behalf of NCAA college athletes regarding name, image and likeness (NIL) compensation. In the June 24, 2021 order, Judge Wilken stated that the lawsuit’s claims stand up against the NCAA’s arguments for dismissal by plausibly alleging injury and anticompetitive effects of the NCAA’s regulations.

In an order from U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, the court denied a motion to stay brought by the NCAA and the conferences, which would have halted discovery in these cases pending the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal in the NCAA Grant-in-Aid case. Hagens Berman’s managing partner, Steve Berman said, “We are pleased with the court’s decision as this will allow us to continue forward with discovery without a delay until later this spring.”

“The court finds that, while the Supreme Court's decision could affect the issues in [the cases] the balance of hardships between the parties weighs against granting a stay at this time,” Judge Wilken wrote