NCAA NAME, IMAGE & LIKENESS
Hagens Berman’s Fight for College Athletes’ Rights to Profit from Use of Their Name, Image and Likeness Prompts NCAA to Suspend Some Amateurism Rules
Hagens Berman filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of current and former NCAA college-athletes accusing the NCAA, Pacific-12 Conference, the Big Ten Conference, the Big Twelve Conference, Southeastern Conference and Atlantic Coast Conference of illegally limiting the compensation that Division I college athletes may receive for the use of their names, images, likenesses and athletic reputations.
California federal judge Claudia Wilken rejected the NCAA's bid to pause discovery in two antitrust suits over student-athlete compensation, finding that pausing the cases while the U.S. Supreme Court takes up related litigation may disadvantage the athletes as their name and likeness rights lose value after graduation.
Judge Wilken also refused to dismiss the lawsuit but said one former athlete in the suit could not bring claims for injunctive relief.
In June, the NCAA said it will suspend long-held amateurism rules prohibiting college athletes from being paid for the use of their names, images and likenesses, allowing players across the country to capitalize on their publicity just as several state laws allowing such payments are set to take effect. View case page »
NCAA GRANTS-IN-AID SCHOLARSHIP
NCAA Grants-in-Aid Scholarship Litigation Culminates in Unanimous SCOTUS Win in Injunctive Portion of Years-Long Class Action
Hagens Berman served as co-lead counsel in a lawsuit stating NCAA rules artificially depress the value of athletic scholarships – known as Grants-in-Aid or GIAs – to typically several thousand dollars less per year, per player, than the actual cost to attend an NCAA member school. The suit alleges that the NCAA and its largest conferences have systematically colluded to disrupt the free market and deprive FBS football and Division I men’s and women’s basketball players of the full economic benefits of their labor.
Hagens Berman attorneys filed a brief before the U.S Supreme Court outlining the background of the case and argument that the NCAA's compensation restraints unfairly limit what college athletes should receive in a free market. Attorneys for the class argue the Sherman Act promotes competition, and the NCAA has "made no showing – factually or legally – as to why the NCAA deserves a judicially created exemption from Section 1 of the Sherman Act..."
In March, The U.S. Supreme Court granted a request by the U.S. Department of Justice to take part in oral arguments in support of college athletes in the case looking at whether the NCAA's amateurism system for college sports is subject to review under antitrust law.
In June, Hagens Berman’s managing partner and co-founder, Steve Berman, saw his most recent sports law victory when the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed 9-0 that NCAA college athletes should legally be able to receive compensation from schools or conferences for athletic services other than cash compensation untethered to education-related expenses. The ruling prohibits the NCAA from enforcing rules limiting those payments. Justice Gorsuch wrote the NCAA had sought “immunity from the normal operation of the antitrust laws,” and Justice Kavanaugh stated, “The NCAA is not above the law.”
These wins and more put the firm on track to win awards since the pandemic started: Class Action MVP of the Year and Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar, and two Practice Group of the Year awards in the areas of antitrust and class action. View case page »
Members of Hagens Berman’s legal team also have been named honorees for the American Antitrust Institute’s Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice for the case NCAA v. Alston. Awarded attorneys include Steve Berman, Craig Spiegel, Benjamin Siegel and Emilee Sisco.
COLLEGE TUITION AMID COVID-19 CLOSURES
Hagens Berman Takes on Universities and Colleges on Behalf of Tuition Payers for Losses Due to COVID-19 Campus Closures
When the pandemic closed college campuses across the country, Hagens Berman began investigating the losses faced by those paying hefty full-price tuition and fees. COVID-19 left students without the amenities they paid for, including dormitories, libraries, athletic complexes, in-person lectures and access to TAs, laboratories, student activities, internships and more. The firm has since filed more than a dozen lawsuits against universities and colleges seeking to represent tuition and fee payers for their losses due to COVID-19-related campus closers.
Many of these active cases saw victories in 2021 in upheld claims, and the firm continues to pursue plaintiffs’ rights. Federal judges in multiple courts upheld breach of contract claims premised on payment of tuition and fees for in-person education against Boston University, Emory University, Brown University, University of Miami, Brandeis University, Quinnipiac University, University of Southern California (USC) and Pepperdine University.
Judges’ orders also allowed for breach of contract claims to continue regarding universities’ failures to provide access to on-campus facilities and resources against Boston University, University of Miami, Brandeis University, Quinnipiac University and USC.
The firm’s clients in tuition matters also received victories regarding claims of unjust enrichment regarding in-person instruction and on-campus facility access against Boston University, Brown University, University of Miami, Brandeis University and Quinnipiac University.
In the case against Emory University, U.S. District Thomas W. Thrash also allowed implied contract and money had and received claims to proceed.
In a court order in March, tuition and fee payers at the University of Washington received a victory against the university as the court upheld their claims as well.
U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee also upheld claims of quasi-contract restitution and UCL claims under the unfair prong in the two separate cases against the USC and Pepperdine University.
Plaintiffs saw a settlement victory in the tuition case against Rutgers University. In October, a New Jersey state judge granted preliminary approval to a $5 million class-action settlement over claims it improperly kept tuition and fees after ceasing in-person instruction
BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST
Hagens Berman’s Class Action Uncovers Years Long “Unparalleled” Antitrust Scheme by Tyson, Perdue and Others to Raise Chicken Price
Hagens Berman partner Shana Scarlett is co-lead counsel in a class-action lawsuit against chicken producers, including Tyson and Perdue, for colluding to reduce chicken production and artificially inflate prices by nearly 50 percent. According to the lawsuit filed by the firm, chicken producers engaged in a conspiracy to share detailed pricing and production information with the intent to increase the price paid by U.S. consumers.
Tyson agreed to the case’s first, ice-breaker settlement for $181 million providing significant relief to consumers.
Shortly after, defendant Pilgrim’s Pride was hit with a $107 million criminal fine by the U.S. Department of Justice. The DOJ found Pilgrim’s Pride guilty, “for its participation in a conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids for broiler chicken products,” the agency stated. Pilgrim’s Pride, according to the DOJ, pleaded guilty, and involved ongoing work from the FBI to eliminate bid rigging and price fixing.
In March, the class asked Illinois federal judge Thomas M. Durkin for early approval of a $104 million settlement with four of the poultry producers to resolve claims they engaged in the scheme. Settlements were reached with Tyson for $99 million, Peco for $1.9 million, George's for $1.9 million and Fieldale for $1.7 million.
Pilgrim's Pride Corp. later agreed to pay consumers $75.5 million for its part in the alleged long-running scheme. View case page »
GLUMETZA ANTITRUST
Court Approves $453 Million Settlements in Glumetza Diabetes Drug Overpricing Lawsuit
In 2021, the court denied summary judgment and paved the way for an October trial in this litigation against brand and generic manufacturers of the diabetes drug Glumetza. Hagens Berman serves as co-lead counsel for the direct purchaser class.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup preliminarily approved $453.85 million in settlements resolving direct purchasers' allegations that Bausch Health Cos. Inc., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Assertio Therapeutics Inc. plotted to delay generic versions of Glumetza. View case page »
NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALE PROTECTION
Hagens Berman Challenges Massachusetts Buoy Lines Harming North Atlantic Right Whales in New England
Hagens Berman litigated claims against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for violating the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by failing to adequately protect the North Atlantic right whale, a critically endangered species frequently found off its coastline. In June, Hagens Berman’s legal team contributed to a month-long federal trial to protect North Atlantic right whales by seeking further protections against the use of vertical buoy lines in Massachusetts waters.
In its November trial result, the court held the plaintiff does not have standing, but if the First Circuit determines he does or another intervenor does, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is liable for violating the ESA by licensing vertical buoy lines for lobster fishing. View case page »
