sports – Duane Morris Sports Law

April 8, 2025April 8, 2025 by Bryan Shapiro

Judge Wilken Conducts Final Approval Hearing in House v. NCAA

On April 7, 2025, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken convened a final approval hearing for the proposed $2.8 billion settlement resolving three high-profile antitrust cases—House v. NCAA, Carter v. NCAA, and Hubbard v. NCAA. As discussed in previous updates, Judge Wilken has appeared supportive of this settlement from its initial filing, but she acknowledged at the hearing that there was room for improvement. Specifically, Judge Wilken directed attorneys representing both the athletes and the NCAA to provide an update within a week, addressing whether they could agree to certain issues she outlined:

Key Issues Highlighted by Judge Wilken:

Grandfathering Current Athletes and Scholarship Limits: One of the most significant concerns acknowledged by Judge Wilken was the potential impact of the settlement on current student-athletes who may lose their roster spots as a result of changes to scholarship structures under the settlement’s terms. Many objectors had voiced concerns with this aspect of the settlement. Judge Wilken noted that many athletes likely chose their institutions with the expectation of continuing to compete in their respective sports. She expressed that it would be unfair for these athletes to face the prospect of losing their scholarships due to roster limitations introduced by the settlement. In light of this, Judge Wilken suggested that these athletes should be “grandfathered in” and allowed to maintain their scholarships, which would prevent them from being disadvantaged by the new restrictions. She emphasized that the number of athletes affected would be relatively small and that such a move would likely generate goodwill among both athletes and the public. While the NCAA’s attorney pushed back on this, Judge Wilken urged the parties to discuss this option further with the NCAA, signaling that this issue may need to be resolved before final approval.
Challenge Rights for Future Athletes: Judge Wilken also demanded more precise language regarding the ability of future college athletes to challenge the settlement once they enter college. She expressed concerns about ensuring that athletes who are not yet part of the settlement class have the opportunity to object to its terms upon matriculation. Attorneys for both the NCAA and Players assured the court that class members could challenge the settlement after they enroll in college, with Judge Wilken retaining the authority to terminate the settlement if problems arise during its implementation.
Concerns Over Timing and Case Dependencies: At one point during the hearing, Judge Wilken considered the possibility of approving the Hubbard case while delaying her ruling on the House and Carter cases. However, after the NCAA attorney emphasized that the settlement requires all three cases to be approved together or else the entire settlement would collapse, Judge Wilken seemingly abandoned this approach. It was made clear that the three cases must proceed as a package.

The concerns articulated by Judge Wilken suggest that significant revisions may be necessary before the settlement can receive final approval. Stakeholders, including educational institutions, student-athletes, and NIL entities, should anticipate potential adjustments to the settlement’s terms and prepare for possible changes in compliance requirements. Close monitoring of further developments is advisable to stay informed about the evolving legal landscape in collegiate athletics.

Within the next week, the NCAA and plaintiffs will respond to Judge Wilken’s concerns. Following that response, stakeholders should anticipate further developments in the settlement’s structure, particularly around scholarship policies and the scope of future athlete challenges. Institutions should review their current scholarship and NIL policies to ensure they remain in compliance with any potential changes resulting from the final settlement.

October 7, 2024October 7, 2024 by Bryan Shapiro

Judge Wilken Grants Preliminary Approval to the House v. NCAA Settlement

As discussed in our prior Alerts (including on June 6, August 1, and September 6, 2024), three major class action antitrust lawsuits brought against the NCAA: House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA, and Carter v. NCAA — all from athletes claiming the NCAA violates the Sherman Act—reached a preliminary settlement agreement that has been pending before U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken. Following the Court’s September 5, 2024 fairness hearing, where Judge Wilken raised various concerns regarding the settlement’s language relating to the NCAA’s efforts to limit athlete compensation from outside entities required the parties, Judge Wilken ordered the parties to go back to the drawing board to respond to her concerns. To that end, the parties filed a revised settlement proposal that included the elimination of the term “booster” from the settlement and further clarified that NCAA enforcement of pay-to-play rules regarding NIL would be limited to review of deal with people and entities who are closely affiliated with schools—which was defined in the settlement as anyone who provided more than $50,000 to a school.

On October 7, 2024, Judge Wilken granted preliminary approval to the revised version of the multi-billion-dollar settlement of these three antitrust lawsuits. Based on Judge Wilken’s concerns at the fairness hearing, many thought that the Judge would schedule another hearing before ruling on the revised settlement and/or issue an opinion explaining why the newly proposed language was satisfactory, particularly because the restrictions on third-party NIL deals remained largely unchanged from the original version. Judge Wilken did not do so and simply granted the revised settlement proposal and issued a schedule for how the case will proceed.

Importantly, Judge Wilken’s grant of preliminary approval does not mean she will grant final approval. The class action process will now allow individuals to file objections to the settlement and athletes to opt out of the class. Additionally, there is a real possibility that any approved settlement could be challenged at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and then at the U.S. Supreme Court. The grant of preliminary approval does, however, indicate that Judge Wilken believes that these issues can be resolved through a court settlement. In any event, and no matter what happens with the final approval of the settlement, it can’t stop labor and employment lawsuits (including Johnson v. NCAA and Fontenot v. NCAA), NLRB charges (including those involving Dartmouth and USC athletes) and lawsuits brought under Title IX.

College athletic departments will likely now (if they haven’t already) begin acting fast to implement their revenue share plans, because college athletes will begin negotiating their 2025 revenue share agreements during this upcoming recruiting portal season (December 2024 for college football).

Key upcoming dates include:

January 31, 2025 for opt-outs and objections;
March 3, 2025 for the parties’ deadline to respond to objections; and
April 7, 2025 for the Final Approval Hearing (which coincides with the 2025 Men’s March Madness Basketball Championship)

As the settlement process continues, schools, collectives, athletes, and any other party involved in college athletics should monitor these developments and speak to legal counsel to ensure they have a full understanding of, and stay current on, all rules, laws, and guidance.

June 4, 2012September 17, 2014 by Paul J. Killion

Can You Sue For An Injury From A Bump On A Bumper Car Ride?

Can you sue for injuries caused by bumping on a bumper car ride? That’s the question presently pending before the California Supreme Court in a case involving application of California’s assumption of risk doctrine. The plaintiff, Dr. Smriti Nalwa, was injured at an amusement park while riding as a passenger in a bumper car “driven” by her nine year old son. Nalwa’s wrist was broken when she tried to brace herself as they collided head-on with another bumper car. Dr. Nalwa, a surgeon, sued the ride operator for her injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment against her, finding her claim barred by assumption of risk. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed and held that as a matter of public policy the assumption of risk doctrine should not apply to an amusement park ride. (Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, LP (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 566, 576-578). The California Supreme Court granted review last year and briefing closed last month.

Continue reading “Can You Sue For An Injury From A Bump On A Bumper Car Ride?”

January 26, 2012July 6, 2016 by Duane Morris

On Your Marks for the London Olympics

With the Olympics now a little more than six months away, most businesses with operations in and around the UK are fine-tuning their contingency plans. Businesses large and small—whether based in Europe or simply having people pass through—need to be prepared. The Olympics will run from 27 July to 12 August with venues all over London, together with events like football and sailing outside of the capital. There are likely to be significant extra visitors to London, not only those visiting the events but also hospitality staff, security personnel, media, sponsors and hangers-on. The Olympics will be a spectacular event, and London will welcome visitors from around the world. For most organizations, however, planning is essential.

Read the Duane Morris Alert for more.