{"id":727,"date":"2023-08-10T14:59:17","date_gmt":"2023-08-10T18:59:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=727"},"modified":"2023-08-17T12:13:53","modified_gmt":"2023-08-17T16:13:53","slug":"fighters-win-class-certification-in-their-antitrust-wage-suppression-battle-with-ufc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2023\/08\/10\/fighters-win-class-certification-in-their-antitrust-wage-suppression-battle-with-ufc\/","title":{"rendered":"Fighters Win Class Certification In Their Antitrust Wage-Suppression Battle With The UFC"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Sean McConnell<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/u><\/em>: On August 9, 2023, Judge Richard F. Boulware II of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted<\/a> Plaintiffs\u2019 motion to certify a class of all persons who competed in one or more live professional UFC-promoted mixed-martial arts bouts taking place or broadcast in the United States from December 16, 2010 to June 30, 2017 in Le v. Zuffa, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-01045 (D. Nev. Aug. 9, 2023). The Court rejected defense arguments that class certification should be denied on the grounds that the statistical model of Plaintiffs\u2019 expert was flawed because it failed to include everyone in the sport and failed to consider the ways promoters help fighters develop in to headliners. Instead, the Court found that these arguments were factual and merits-based, and therefore, were unavailing as a matter of law to defeat class certification. The Court also found defendants\u2019 arguments unpersuasive relative to factual matters underlying the elemen<\/em>ts of Rule 23.<\/p>\n

The ruling in Le v. Zuffa<\/em> is required reading for any corporate counsel handling antitrust class action litigation involving wage-suppression issues.<\/p>\n

Case Background<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n

Plaintiffs are current or former UFC fighters. Defendant, Zuffa, LLC does business as UFC and is the preeminent MMA event promoter in the United States. Plaintiffs allege that UFC used exclusive contracts, market power, and a series of acquisitions to suppress wages paid to UFC fighters during the class period by up to $1.6 billion. Plaintiffs filed suit in December 2014 and defeated UFC\u2019s motions for partial summary judgment in 2017. In February 2018, plaintiffs moved to certify two classes. The first consisted of all persons who competed in one or more live professional UFC-promoted MMA bouts taking place in the United States from December 16, 2010 to June 30, 2017. As discussed in more detail below, the Court certified this class. The second putative class consisted of all UFC fighters whose identity was expropriated or exploited by the UFC. Due to differences in identity rights allegedly at issue and a lack of connection between UFC\u2019s anticompetitive scheme and any suppressed identity compensation, the Court did not certify the identity-based class.<\/p>\n

Class Certification Granted<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n

Plaintiffs\u2019 expert advanced a statistical regression model to tie UFC\u2019s alleged anticompetitive scheme to allegedly suppressed wages earned by UFC fighters. The model utilized a database that tracked any fighter that fought for an MMA promoter as well USA Today\/MMA Junkie rankings to identify the top fifteen fighters in any of the ten major MMA weight classes.<\/p>\n

Defendants opposed certification on grounds that these inputs were flawed because they were underinclusive and failed to account for all of the ways that promoters promote fighters. The Court rejected these arguments at the class certification stage on the grounds that they were factual and merits-based. The Court also found these arguments unpersuasive as to the facts in the record underlying the motion for class certification.<\/p>\n

The Court concluded plaintiffs met the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). In doing so, the Court recognized a relevant antitrust market for elite fighter services. The Court also found that UFC dominated that market because it controls, or controlled, in excess of 70% of it. The Court also opined that UFC used exclusionary provisions in fighter contracts, coercive tactics, and acquisitions of competing promoters as part of an anticompetitive scheme to frustrate fighters\u2019 ability to fight for rivals and suppress wages.<\/p>\n

Implications for Employers<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n

Le v. Zuffa <\/em>is yet another example of a federal court class certification decision turning on the existence of common, injury-producing conduct. The Court credited evidence establishing UFC has anticompetitive power on the buyer-side market of purchasing fighter services and that it used this power to harm all UFC fighters.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Sean McConnell Duane Morris Takeaways: On August 9, 2023, Judge Richard F. Boulware II of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted Plaintiffs\u2019 motion to certify a class of all persons who competed in one or more live professional UFC-promoted mixed-martial arts bouts taking place or … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Fighters Win Class Certification In Their Antitrust Wage-Suppression Battle With The UFC”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-727","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-certification-motions"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Defense","first_name":"Class Action","job_title":"","user_url":"","description":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/727","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=727"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/727\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=727"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=727"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=727"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=727"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}