On behalf of a proposed class, Grant House (a current member of the Arizona State University men’s swimming and diving team) and Sedona Prince (a current member of the University of Oregon women’s basketball team) filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA, Pac-12 Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, SEC, and ACC seeking compensation for use of their names, images, and likenesses. Plaintiffs argue that the NCAA and conferences have engaged in an “overarching conspiracy” to (a) “fix the amount that student-athletes may be paid for licensing, use, and sale of their names, images, and likeness—at zero; and (b) foreclose student-athletes from the market for licensing, use, and sale of their names, images, and likenesses entirely.”  Plaintiffs argue, amongst other things, that they are not permitted to take advantage of their popularity on social media in exchange for compensation.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs argue the NCAA and conferences have violated antitrust laws and have unjustly enriched themselves and their business partners.

Plaintiffs argued the relevant market is the nationwide market for the labor of NCAA Division I college athletes (“Division I Labor Market”).  The Division I Labor Market includes all of the colleges and universities in NCAA Division I. This includes all colleges and universities that are members of the Power Five Conference Defendants, as well as the schools and conferences they collude with through NCAA agreements to fix the maximum price paid to student-athletes in exchange for the commercial use of their names, images, and likenesses (“NIL”).  Plaintiffs argue the NCAA and its members have the ability to control price and exclude competition in this market. All NCAA members have agreed to utilize and abide by the NCAA’s bylaws, including the provisions detailed herein, which Plaintiffs argue have been used by the NCAA and its members to fix the prices at which student-athletes are paid for their commercial licensing rights, including but not limited to individual and group licensing rights, and/or to foreclose student-athletes from exercising any such rights entirely. Plaintiffs further argue the NCAA and its members have the power to exclude from this market any member who is found to violate its rules.  Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint states there are no reasonable substitutes for the educational and athletic opportunities offered by NCAA Division I schools.  Plaintiffs further argue the restraints are not necessary to preserve consumer demand for college sports.

Plaintiffs propose the following class and sub-classes:

The “Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Class”—

All current and former student-athletes who compete on, or competed on, an NCAA Division I athletic team at any time between four (4) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and the date of judgment in this matter.

This Class excludes the officers, directors, and employees of Defendants. This Class also excludes all judicial officers presiding over this action and their immediate family members and staff, and

The “Social Media Damages Sub-Class”—

All current and former student-athletes who compete on, or competed on, an NCAA Division I athletic team at a college or university that is a member of one of the Power Five Conferences, at any time between four (4) years prior to filing of this Complaint and the date of judgment in this matter.

This Sub-Class excludes the officers, directors, and employees of Defendants. This Class also excludes all judicial officers presiding over this action and their immediate family members and staff, and any juror assigned to this action.

On behalf of the members of the Social Media Damages Sub-Class, Plaintiffs seek the social media earnings that members of this Sub-Class would have received absent Defendants’ unlawful conduct.

The “Group Licensing Damages Sub-Class”—

All current and former student-athletes who compete on, or competed on, an NCAA Division I men’s or women’s basketball team or an FBS football team, at a college or university that is a member of one the Power Five Conferences, at any time between four (4) years prior to filing of this Complaint and the date of judgment in this matter.

This Sub-Class excludes the officers, directors, and employees of Defendants. This Sub-Class also excludes all judicial officers presiding over this action and their immediate family members and staff, and any juror assigned to this action.

On behalf of the members of the Group Licensing Damages Sub-Class, Plaintiffs seek the share of game telecast group licensing revenue that members of this Sub-Class would have received absent Defendants’ unlawful conduct.

Plaintiffs set forth two causes of action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act: (a) unreasonable restraint of trade as a result of restraining trade in the market place by artificially depressing, fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing prices paid to the members of the class; and (b) unreasonable restraint of trade by effectuating a horizontal group boycott of and refusing to deal with the members of the class by preventing members of the class from using their NIL for compensation. In addition to Plaintiffs’ claims brought under the Sherman Act, Plaintiffs argued that Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of unlawful conduct at the expense of the members of the class.  As a result, Plaintiffs seek profit disgorgement resulting from the alleged wrongful conduct.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek actual damages, treble damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15, attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, a declaratory judgment “declaring as void the NCAA’s Bylaws that operate to impose a restriction on the compensation student-athletes can receive in exchange the commercial use of their names, images, and likenesses”, and an injunction “restraining the NCAA and Conference Defendants from enforcing their unlawful and anticompetitive agreement to restrict the amount of NIL compensation available to class”.

For any questions, feel free to contact Christian Dennie at cdennie@bgsfirm.com.