Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Corey Coley, Jr., a football player for North Carolina State University (NC State) who exhausted his Division I eligibility in 2024-25. He files this antitrust lawsuit seeking an additional year of eligiblity. Coley is arguing in part that (1) the NCAA didn't give him proper credit for his injuries in denying his hardship waiver; (2) the NCAA's definition of a "season" is arbitrary; and (3) the four-year limit is arbitrary given various exceptions like the COVID waiver.

(No. 25-cv-00098, E.D. North Carolina, filed February 21, 2025)

Description of the Case

Jett Elad, a football player who has played for Ohio University (2019, 2020, 2021), Garden City Community College (2022), and UNLV (2023, 2024), filed this lawsuit seeking an extra year to play at Rutgers for the 2025 season based on the blanket waiver issued by the NCAA after the Pavia v. NCAA decision. Along with making a similar case as Pavia in challenging the inclusion of JUCO years towards NCAA Division I eligibility, he also challenges the NCAA's Five-Year Rule more generally, arguing that the NCAA's confusing and inconsistent approach to granting waivers to the Five-Year Rule harms his ability to compete in NIL labor markets. He claims that he was offered about $500,000 in NIL money to attend Rutgers, and that the NCAA's refusal to grant him a waiver impedes his ability to earn that money. He seems preliminary injunctive relief so that he will be able to compete for a starting position in Rutgers's spring practice, which starts on March 25.

(No. 25-cv-01981, D. New Jersey, Judge Zahid N. Quaraishi, filed March 20, 2025)

Description of the Case

This lawsuit challenges the NCAA's bylaws that make college athletes who play in the semipro junior league Canadian Hockey League (CHL) ineligible for NCAA competition. Specifically, the suit claims that the combination of NCAA bylaws 12.2.3.2 ("An individual shall not be eligible for intercollegiate athletics in a sport if the individual ever competed on a professional team"), 12.2.3.2.1 ("In sports other than men’s ice hockey and skiing, before initial full-time collegiate enrollment, an individual may compete on a professional team...") and 12.2.3.2.3 ("Ice hockey teams in the United States and Canada, classified by the Canadian Hockey Association as major junior teams, are considered professional teams under NCAA legislation") constitute an illegal boycott against current and former CHL players.

This is a class action lawsuit with one class that includes "anyone who either (i) played in the CHL at any point between August 12, 2020, and the present, or (ii) attended college at any point between August 12, 2020, and the present after playing in the CHL." The original representative lead plaintiff is Rylan Masterson, a hockey player who played two exhibition games as a sixteeen-year-old in 2022 for the CHL's Windsor Spitfires and was subsequently declared ineligible for Division I NCAA competition. He was joined in an amended complaint by Nicholas Avakyan, a 20-year-old hockey player who played three seasons in the CHL. Avakyan has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction (without Masterson) that seeks to force the NCAA to declare him eligible for NCAA competition immediately.

(No. 24-cv-00754, W.D.N.Y., Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr., filed August 12, 2024)

Description of the Case

The state attorneys general of Ohio, Colorado, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia filed an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA arguing that NCAA Bylaws 13.5.5.1 (the Transfer Eligibility Rule) and 12.11.4.2 (the Rule of Restitution) are illegal in the way that they prohibit athletes from transfering between schools without penalty. In an amended complaint, the plaintiff states were joined by the attorneys general of Virginia, Washington DC, Minnesota, Mississippi, and the United States.

(No. 23-cv-00100, N.D. W.Va., filed December 7, 2023)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Nyzier Fourqurean, a former (class of 2024) football player for the University of Wisconsin. In a manner similar to Diego Pavia in Pavia v. NCAA, Fourqurean seeks immediate injunctive relief stopping the NCAA from enforcing NCAA Bylaw 12.8.1 (the "Five-Year Rule") against him to allow him to play an additional year. He claims that his year at NCAA Division II Grand Valley State should not be counted against him, given his personal difficulties during that year and the fact that Division II does not offer the same economic and developmental opportunities as Division I. He wishes to stay in school to take advantage of NIL opportunities and House settlement revenue sharing.

(No. 25-cv-00068, W.D. Wisc., Judge William M. Conley, filed January 29, 2025)

(Appeal of Preliminary Injunction: No. 25-1187, 7th Cir., filed February 7, 2025)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Alberto Osuna Sanchez, a baseball player who recently enrolled at the University of Tennessee. In a manner similar to Diego Pavia in Pavia v. NCAA, Osuna seeks immediate injunctive relief stopping the NCAA from enforcing NCAA Bylaw 12.8.1 (the "Five-Year Rule") against him to allow him to play an additional year. He claims that he is entitled to similar relief as Pavia given his two years spent at Walters State Community College (2019-20 and 2020-21) prior to enrolling at the University of North Carolina (2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24), and the University of Tampa (2024-25). Following the Pavia ruling, he was recruited by and transfered to Kansas State and now seeks a waiver to allow him to play in the Spring 2025 for Tennessee, as at Tennessee he "has already received an NIL opportunity that exceeds any NIL opportunities he has previously had."

(No. 25-cv-00062, E.D. Tennessee, Judge Charles E Atchley, Jr., filed February 12, 2025)

Description of the Case

College of Charleston basketball player Ante Brzovic filed this lawsuit challenging In a manner similar to Nyzier Fourqurean in Fourqurean v. NCAA, Brzovic seeks immediate injunctive relief stopping the NCAA from enforcing NCAA Bylaw 12.8.1 (the "Five-Year Rule") against him to allow him to play an additional year. He claims that his two years (2020-21, 2021-22) at NCAA Division II Southeastern Oklahoma State should not be counted against him, given his personal difficulties during that year and the fact that Division II does not offer the same economic and developmental opportunities as Division I. He wishes to stay in school to pursue his master's degree take advantage of NIL opportunities and House settlement revenue sharing, which he estimates at a minimum of $1 million for the 2025-26 school year.

(No. 25-cv-02885, D. South Carolina, filed April 6, 2025)

Description of the Case

In this case, current University of North Carolina tennis player Reese Brantmeier and current Texas tennis player Maya Joint have challenged the NCAA's ban on individual athletes' ability to receive prize money for outside athletic competitions beyond "actual and necessary" expenses. As an example, Brantmeier claims in her complaint that she was forced to forfeit over $35,000 in prize money earned during the 2021 U.S. Open and other tournaments in 2021 and that the NCAA refused to certify her as an amateur for the 2022-23 school year, challenging some of her submitted expenses (e.g., a scanner to track and catalog receipts and a hotel room shared with her mother) as "unnecessary." She claims that under antitrust law there is no longer any justification for the restriction given that athletes in other sports like football and basketball are able to earn money from the participation in their sports through NIL deals.

This is a class action lawsuit seeking both injunctive relief (an injunction against the rule) and money damages. As of the filing of the amended complaint in November 2024 and the filing of a renewed motion for class certification in February 2025, the defined class includes all current and former (within the five year statute of limitations) Division I tennis athletes, rather than the originally pled class of all Division I individual sport athletes. The original representative plaintiff is University of North Carolina tennis player Reese Brantmeier. Brantmeier was joined in the lawsuit by current Texas tennis player Maya Joint in the amended complaint. The original case also included a declaration by Nebraska bowler Jillian Martin, but she was not included in the more narrow drawing of the case in the amended complaint.

(No. 24-cv-00238, M.D.N.C., Judge Catherine C. Eagles, filed March 18, 2024)

Description of the Case

This lawsuit filed by Vanderbilt quarterback Diego Pavia seeks a declaration that the combination of NCAA Bylaw 12.8 (granting four years of eligibility in five years regardless of whether the athlete is playing sports or playing at a non-NCAA school) and NCAA Bylaw 12.02.6 (defining intercollegiate competition as including competition at both four-year and two-year institutions) is illegal under antitrust law. Pavia claims that the fact that the rule subtracts one year of NCAA eligibility while players are playing at junior colleges has no procompetitive basis and deprives athletes from time where higher NIL earnings are available to them, i.e., while they are playing at Division I four-year institutions. Pavia claims that the NCAA's implementation of a COVID extension year that allowed some athletes to play five years in six calendar years shows that there is no real justification behind Bylaw 12.8

(Original District Court Filing: No. 24-cv-01336, M.D. Tenn., Chief Judge William L. Campbell, Jr., filed November 8, 2024)

(Appeal of Preliminary Injunction: No. 24-6153, 6th Cir., filed December 26, 2024)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Trey Ciulla-Hall, a master's student at the Univeristy of Maryland. In a manner similar to Diego Pavia in Pavia v. NCAA, Ciulla-Hall seeks immediate injunctive relief stopping the NCAA from enforcing NCAA Bylaw 12.8.1 (the "Five-Year Rule") against him to allow him to play an additional year. He claims that his year at NCAA Division II Stonehill College should not be counted towards his eligibility, given his personal difficulties during that year and the fact that Division II does not offer the same economic and developmental opportunities as Division I. He wishes to stay in school to take advantage of NIL opportunities and House settlement revenue sharing.

(No. 25-cv-10271, D. Massachusetts, Judge Denise J. Casper, filed February 4, 2025)

Description of the Cases

This group of lawsuits are filed by several groups of former star football and men's basketball players and attack the NCAA's longstanding ban on college athletes earning compensation for the use of their NIL in game broadcasts and highlights. Specifically, the suits claim that the NIL waivers that athletes used to sign as part of their national letters of intent were the product of an anticompetitive environment (as athletes could not go to other schools who might not require such an agreement), and that but for that waiver, athletes would be able to negotiate for the continued use of their NIL in game broadcast replays and highlights in NCAA-related media (i.e., on their website and on YouTube). Each are based in antitrust law, with the two cases that are filed in state courts, Bailey (NC) and Bush (CA), alleging violations of the relevant state antitrust law.

One key issue with these cases will be the statute of limitations, a legal concept that requires lawsuits to be filed within a certain period after the alleged harm. For antitrust law, the statute of limitations is four years, which explains why the House v. NCAA case and settlement class is limited to athletes who played after June 16, 2016 (as House was filed on June 15, 2020). Based on their complaint, it appears that the plaintiffs will counter this affirmative defense based on the continuing harm doctrine, arguing that the continued use of their NIL through the showing and sale of old game highlights continues to violate their rights.

Each of these lawsuits are class action lawsuits that seek to include (in various forms) all NCAA Division I athletes who participated in NCAA sports prior to June 15, 2016, which is the cutoff date for athletes part of the House v. NCAA case and settlement, and whose NIL has been used or licensed for commercial purposes by the NCAA, the Power Five conferences, or Veritone (an NCAA contractor tasked with archiving footage). Representative plaintiffs for each case include:

Description of the Case

This lawsuit is the aftermath of the University of Florida's recruitment of quarterback Jaden Rashada, who now plays for the University of Georgia. Rashada alleges that he was induced to flip his commitment from the University of Miami (and forgo an alleged $9.5 million NIL deal with Miami boosters) based on a promise that Florida's NIL collective, The Gator Collective, would sign him to a $13.85 million deal if he signed with Florida instead. Once Rashada signed his national letter of intent, those involved with his recruitment at Florida backed out of this commitment and claimed that no such promise was ever made.

Rashada has sued four defendants: Florida head football coach William "Billy" Napier, former Florida Director of Player Engagement & NIL Marcus Castro-Walker, Florida booster Hugh Hathcock, and Hathcock's company, Velocity Automotive Solutions.

(No. 24-cv-00219, N.D. Fla., Judge M. Casey Rodgers, filed May 21, 2024)

Description of the Case

This case involves a lawsuit by Louisiana State women's basketball player Last-Tear Poa -- an Australian national -- against the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) after the agency's denial of Poa's P-1A visa. International college athletes currently cannot enter into NIL deals on F-1 student visas (which do not permit off-campus and non-curricular work), and as such some athletes have sought P-1A visas (visas for internationally recognized athletes) instead. According to Poa's attorney, Poa's request was denied because (1) her proposed NIL activities were not seen as "ancillary promotional activities" and are unrelated to her status as an athlete, (2) her NIL representation agreement is not an agency agreement; and (3) she cannot attend school on a P-1A visa. Poa is challenging this ruling and the overall limits on P-1A visa access for college athletes.

Note: This docket is sealed, so access to documents and deeper specifics on the case will be limited.

(No. 24-cv-00887, M.D. La., filed October 24, 2024)

Description of the Case

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit claim that they are employees and thus must be paid at the federal minimum wage (including time-and-a-half overtime) in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (9 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.) and similar state wage-and-hour law. They claim that their performance as athletes for universities constitutes work for those universities and thus creates an employment relationship.

This is a class action lawsuit involving several different classes: one FLSA collective action class for all Division I athletes in all sports and all genders within the FLSA statute of limitations and other classes for athletes who competed for universities in several different states (PA, NY, CT, NC, OR, LA, AZ, and IN). Representative lead plaintiffs are former Villanova football player Ralph "Trey" Johnson, former Fordham swimming and diving athlete Stephanie Kerkeles, former Fordham baseball player Nicholas Labella, former Sacred Heart tennis player Claudia Ruiz, former Cornell soccer player Jacob Willebeek-Lemair, former Lafayette tennis player Alexa Cooke, former Oregon track-and-field athlete Rhesa Foster, former Tulane football player Zachary Harris, former Notre Dame lacrosse player Matthew Schmidt, former Arizona softball player Tamara Schoen Statman, former Purdue softball player Gina Snyder, former Duke track-and-field athlete Esteban Suarez, and former Marist lacrosse player Liam Walsh.

(Original District Court Filing: No. 19-cv-05230, E.D. Penn., Judge John R. Padova, filed November 6, 2019)

(Appeal of Denial of Motion to Dismiss: No. 22-1223, 3d Cir., Judges Restrepo, Porter, and McKee, filed February 8, 2022, closed August 2, 2024)

Description of the Case

In this NLRB case based on a charge by the National College Players Association (NCPA) and litigated by the general counsel's office of the NLRB, the NLRB general counsel claims that the scholarship and non-scholarship walk-on players of the University of Southern California (USC) football and men's and women's basketball teams are employees of Southern Cal, the Pac-12 Conference*, and the NCAA as joint employers. The general counsel bases this claim based on the services provided by the players to the university, conference, and NCAA, and control the three parties collectively assert over "many aspects of the Players’ labor and services," including, for example, "their work hours, the hiring/recruiting process, supervision and discipline, limitations on Players’ income, eligibility requirements, transfer restrictions, mandatory testing requirements, interviews and social media, academics, attire, vehicles, curfews, bed checks, and Name, Image and Likeness limitations."

* Note: The case was brought before USC's transition from the Pac-12 Conference to the Big Ten Conference, so the responding party is still the Pac-12 Conference. The Pac-12 Conference has argued that there is no longer a live controversy against them for this reason, and that claims must now be directed towards the Big Ten, though no such measures have been taken as of this writing.

(No. 31-CA-290326, NLRB Region 31, filed February 8, 2022, charge filed May 18, 2023)

Description of the Case

The University of Oregon varsity beach volleyball and club women's rowing teams allege that the University of Oregon has discriminated against them in providing unequal resources between men's and women's teams on campus. In sum, the plaintiffs have three overarching claims: an equal treatment claim, an equal financial aid claim, and an equal opportunities to participate claim.

Specific to the beach volleyball team, the plaintiffs claim that Oregon has subjected the team to dramatically disparate conditions, including having them play at a public park run by the city of Eugene with a bathroom with no stall doors (due to the city’s concerns about squatters and drug use) and only one small bench as seating for team members and/or spectators with the only available locker room facilities on campus two miles away. Additionally, the team claims that the university has repeatedly broken promises to remedy these conditions by building an on-campus facility. The team has compared these conditions to the array of amenities (including the availability of athletic scholarships) granted to men's teams like Oregon's football team to show that Oregon has not provided equal opportunities as required under Title IX. The beach volleyball team is arguing for increased travel funding, facility access, and NIL support to remedy the claimed disparity.

Similarly, the rowing team claims that Oregon has not provided substantially proportional opportunities between male and female athletes on campus overall, arguing that Oregon should be required to elevate their team to a varsity level to remedy the claimed disparity.

This is a class action lawsuit with classes for the beach volleyball plaintiffs (equal treatment claim, equal financial aid claim) and the rowing plaintiffs (equal opportunities to participate claim).

(No. 23-cv-01806, D. Oregon, Judge Michael J. McShane, filed December 1, 2023)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff, Christopher Logan, is the former head women's soccer coach at the University of North Dakota (UND). He alleges that he was illegally fired in retaliation for reporting gender-based inequities between the men's and women's athletic facilities on campus. Specifically, he alleeges that the women's soccer field did not meet NCAA-recommended dimensions, presented numerous safety hazards (e.g., significant declines at field edges, a deep embankment near the goal, etc.), lacked proper security and enclosure, and only had two smaller bleachers for spectators and a small shed for a press box. On March 2, 2024, Logan emailed UND administration with these complaints. After the complaints were presumably inadequately addressed, the team filed a formal Title IX complaint in October 2024. Logan then participated in Title IX investigatory meetings throughout October and November until, on November 25, 2024, he was informed that his contract would not be renewed when it was set to expire on December 31, 2024. Senior Associate Athletic Director Liz Jarnigan allegedly told a current UND coach that the Title IX complaint influenced UND's decision not to renew Logan's contract.

Logan has alleged retaliation in violation of Title IX, a violation of North Dakota's state Whistleblower Act. He seeks a declaratory judgment that UND's conduct violated Title IX, compensatory damages for economic and non-economic (emotional/reputational) losses, injunctive relief requiring UND to be better trained on and comply with Title IX, and attorneys fees.

(No. 25-cv-00085, D. North Dakota, filed April 16, 2025)

Description of the Case

A group of female lacrosse athletes at California State University, Fresno (Fresno State) filed this Title IX lawsuit against their school after the school eliminated its men's wrestling, men's tennis, and women's lacrosse teams after the 2020-21 seasons. The suit argues that Fresno State has failed to provide female students effective accommodations by not providing equal opportunities to participate in varsity athletics and by failing to provide female athletes with an equal allocation of financial aid and other benefits.

This is a class action lawsuit involving all current, present, and future female athletes at Fresno State who did not recieve proportional athletic aid and treatment and benefits. Representative lead plaintiffs are former Fresno State lacrosse players Taylor Anders, Hennessey Evans, Abbigayle Roberts, Megan Walaitis, Tara Weir, and Courtney Walburger.

(Original District Court Filing: No. 21-cv-00179, E.D. Cal, Senior District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller, filed February 12, 2021)

(Appeal of Denial of Class Certification: No. 23-15265, 3d Cir., Judges Gould, Koh, and Desai, filed February 8, 2022, closed August 2, 2024)

Description of the Case

A group of former Ivy League female swimmers filed this lawsuit attacking the NCAA and Ivy League's Transgender Eligibility Policies, claiming that the policies are discriminatory towards women and deprive women of equal opportunity in violation of Title IX by allowing transgender women born as males to participate in NCAA women's sports. The plaintiffs in particular focus on the Ivy League allowing former University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas -- a transgender woman -- to compete in the women's 500-yard freestyle event at the 2022 Ivy League Championships and NCAA Division I Swimming and Diving Championship hosted at Harvard.

The lawsuit is led by three athletes who participated in the 2022 NCAA Swimming and Diving Championship: former UPenn swimmer Grace Estabrook, former UPenn swimmer Margot Kaczorowski, and former UPenn Ellen Holmquist.

Defendants in the suit include the Ivy League Council of Presidents, the Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College, the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, and the NCAA.

(No. 25-cv-10281, D. Mass., Judge William G. Young, filed February 4, 2025)

Description of the Case

A group of female athletes at San Diego State University (SDSU) filed this Title IX lawsuit against their school arguing that SDSU has failed to provide female athletes on campus proportional athletic aid and proprotional treatment and benefits when compared to male athletes. The suit was filed in part as a response to SDSU cutting the varsity women's rowing team on campus. Additionally, the lawsuit was amended shortly after its initial filing to also include a retaliation claim based on a Zoom call held shortly after thelawsuit was filed where several plaintiffs on the track-and-field team were allegedly admonished for filing the lawsuit and threatened with removal from the team.

This is a class action lawsuit involving all current, present, and future female athletes at SDSU from 2018-19 to the present who did not recieve proportional athletic aid and treatment and benefits. Representative lead plaintiffs are former SDSU rowers Madison Fisk, Raquel Castro, Greta Castrillon, Olivia Petrine, Helen Bauer, Natalie Figueroa, Kamryn Whitworth, Eleanor Davies, Alexa Dietz, and Laura Sulcs and current SDSU track-and-field athletes Carina Clark, Erica Grotegeer, Kaitlin Heri, Aisha Watt, and Sara Absten.

(No. 22-cv-00173, S.D. Cal., Judge Todd W. Robinson, filed February 7, 2022)

Description of the Case

In this case, several current and former women's volleyball players (along with one former coach) are challenging the Mountain West Conference's transgender inclusion policy. They initially argued that a trans woman athlete who plays for San Jose State's women's volleyball team should have been declared ineligible to travel with and complete with the team at the Mountain West Conference Volleyball Championships on November 27-30, 2024, but this request for relief was denied. Some San Jose State plaintiffs also claim that the policy has deprived them of equal opportunities under Title IX because they have lost opportunities to play due to the trans woman's allowed inclusion. The (non-San Jose State) plaintiffs also claim that they have been illegally retaliated against for their boycotts by being required to forfeit matches against San Jose State. The plaintiffs base their claims on Title IX, the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, and contract theories (fraud and misrepresentation).

Plaintiffs include current San Jose State volleyball player Brooke Slusser, former San Jose State volleyball players Alyssa Sugai and Elle Patterson, current University of Nevada, Reno volleyball players Sia Liilii and Nicanora Clarke, current Utah State volleyball player Kaylie Ray, current University of Wyoming volleyball players Macey Boggs, Sierra Grizzle, and Jordan Sandy, current Boise State volleyball players Katelyn Van Kirk and Kiersten Van Kirk, and San Jose State volleyball associate head coach Melissa Batie-Smoose. They are suing the Mountain West Conference, Mountain West commissioner Gloria Nevarez, San Jose State, two San Jose State athletic department directors, and San Jose State volleyball coach Todd Kress. Utah State University was also granted the right to intervene in the lawsuit as an intervenor-plaintiff after no party objected, but withdrew their complaint in intervention after the Mountain West Tournament. Following the tournament (and on appeal), Slusser (a graduating senior) was replaced as lead plaintiff by Katelyn Van Kirk (a freshman).

(Original District Court Filing: No. 24-cv-03155, D. Colo., Judge S. Kato Crews, filed November 13, 2024)

(Appeal of Denial of Emergency Motion: No. 24-1461, 10th Cir., filed November 25, 2024)

Description of the Case

Two female athletes at the University of Kentucky filed this Title IX and Fourteenth Amendment lawsuit alleging that Kentucky has failed to provide equitable varsity athletic opportunites for women. The plaintiffs seek to force Kentucky to add women's varsity teams in lacrosse, field hockey, and/or in equestrian sports to comply with Title IX.

This is a class action lawsuit involving all current, present, and future female athletes at Kentucky who did not recieve proportional athletic aid and treatment and benefits. The lead plaintiffs are two former UK students who expressed interest in one or more of the three sports: Elizabeth Niblock and Ala Hassan.

(Appeal: No. 24-6060, 6th Circuit, filed November 26, 2024)

(Original Filing: No. 19-cv-00394, Judge Karen Caldwell, E.D. Ky., filed September 25, 2019)

Description of the Case

A group of female athletes filed this lawsuit attacking the NCAA's Transgender Eligibility Policies, claiming that the policies are discriminatory towards women and deprive women of equal opportunity in violation of Title IX by allowing transgender women born as males to participate in NCAA women's sports. The plaintiffs in particular focus on the NCAA allowing former University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas -- a transgender woman -- to compete in and win the gold medal in the women's 500-yard freestyle event at the 2022 NCAA Division I Swimming and Diving Championship hosted by Georgia Tech.

The lawsuit is led by six athletes (one proceeding anonymously) who participated in the 2022 NCAA Swimming and Diving Championship including former Kentucky swimmer Riley Gaines, NC State swimmer Kylee Alons, North Carolina swimmer Grace Countie, Virginia Tech swimmer Reka Gyorgy, and Kentucky swimmer Kaitlynn Wheeler. They are joined by thirteen current athletes including Arkansas track-and-field athlete Ainsley Erzen, Kentucky tennis player Ellie Eades, Texas A&M swimmer Ellis Fox, San Jose State volleyball player Brooke Slusser, Cedarville University volleyball player Nanea Merryman, and Roanoke College swimmers Lily Mullens, Carter Satterfield, Katie Blankinship, Susanna Price, Kate Pearson, Julianna Morrow, and Halle Schart.

Defendants in the suit include the NCAA, the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (both as a unit and individually), the Georgia Tech Athletic Association, and Georgia Tech president Angel Cabrera. The National Women's Law Center has also pushed to participate in the lawsuit on behalf of transgender athletes, first as intervenors (denied) and now as unopposed amicus curiae.

(No. 24-cv-01109, N.D. Georgia, Judge Tiffany R. Johnson, filed March 14, 2024)

Description of the Case

The plaintiffs in this case are challenging the Ivy League's longstanding practice of forbidding the grant of athlete scholarships to athletes playing for its member institutions, claiming that this practice constitutes a price fixing conspiracy violative of antitrust law. A key issue in this case is whether individual athletic conferences on their own can be seen as controlling a market on their own, or whether their competition with other conferences is sufficient to show that athletes have other options to sell their labor as college athletes.

(Current Appeal: No. 24-02826, 2nd Circuit, filed October 22, 2024)

(Original Filing: No. 23-cv-00305, D. Conn., Judge Alvin W. Thompson, filed March 7, 2023)

Description of the Case

The plaintiffs in this case challenge NCAA Bylaw 11.01.6, which provides for restrictions on the compensation that can be provided to so-called volunteer coaches that exist as assistant coaches in sports other than football and basketball. The plaintiffs claim that but for the restriction they would have earned minimum wage and other benefits that are ordinarily provided to other coaches that do not have a volunteer designation. They claim the arrangement thus violates antitrust law.

This is a class action lawsuit seeking to include all those who have worked as volunteer coaches for Division I programs within the statute of limitations. The Smart litigation focuses on baseball coaches, while Colon includes all other non-football and basketball sports. The representative lead plaintiffs for Smart are former Arkansas baseball coach Taylor Smart and former UC Davis baseball coach Michael Hacker. The representative lead plaintiffs for Colon are former Arizona State track and field coach Shannon Ray, current San Jose State softball coach Khala Taylor, former Virginia swimming and diving coach Peter Robinson, former Pittsburgh softball coach Katherine Sebbane, and former Fresno State women's volleyball coach Rudy Barajas. (Former Fresno State wrestling coach Joseph Colon, a representative lead plaintiff in that cases original filing, has since been dropped from the suit) The two cases were consolidated into one joint action, but the cases will be separated as the parties to Smart have filed notice that they have reached a settlement.

Description of the Case

This lawsuit was filed by a group of homeless disabled veterans against the United States Department of Veterans (VA) Affairs based on the VA's failure to provide adequate housing for those veterans in Los Angeles, CA, which they claim violates § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The VA has argued that they do not have sufficient space to build new housing. However, the plaintiffs have countered that the reason why the VA does not have adequate land for housing is that they have improperly leased portions of their West Los Angeles campus to a private school, an oil company, and -- of interest to those in college sports -- UCLA's baseball team for the purposes of their home field, Jackie Robinson Stadium.

(Original District Court Filing: No. 22-cv-08357, C.D. Cal., Judge David O. Carter, filed November 15, 2022)

(Appeal of Trial Order and Injunction: Nos. 24-6338 & 24-6603, 9th Cir., filed October 17, 2024)

Description of the Case

Former Central Michigan University (CMU) and Rochester University men's basketball player Damarion Bonds filed this lawsuit after he was dismissed from CMU for allegedly providing false information on his Previous Institution Verification Form (PIVF). While at Rochester, Bonds had been the subject of a Title IX investigation for alleged sexual misconduct. According to the complaint, while Bonds denies the allegations he had been forced to sign a sanctions notice memorializing the citation in order to transfer to Henry Ford College for the 2023-24 school year. When he filled out his PIVF to then transfer to CMU for 2024-25, he indicated "No" on a question asking whether he had been expelled, suspended, placed on a probationary period, etc. When CMU's PIVF regarding Bonds came back with a "Yes" on that question, CMU Title IX coordinator Mary Martinez initiated an investigation culminating in a memo where she found Bonds's PIVF response "technically accurate" since he was only dismissed from Rochester's basketball team (instead of from the school as a whole), but still recommended that CMU reevaluation Bonds's eligibility to continue at CMU. After a hearing and an appeal, CMU determined that Bonds had violated the CMU Code and dismissed Bonds from CMU entirely.

Bonds alleges that CMU, Rochester, and individual defendants Scott E. Samuels (VP of Student Life, Admissions, and Marketing and Title IX Coordinator at Rochester), Thomas H. Idema, Jr. (Director of Student Conduct at CMU), and Mary Martinez (Title IX Coordinator and Assistant to the President for the Office of Civil Rights and Institutional Equity at CMU) violated his procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and violated Title IX under an erroneous outcome theory of liability (see Doe v. Miami Univ., 882 F.3d 579, 589 (6th Cir. 2018)). He also claims injurious falsehood, negligence, promissory estoppel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He is seeking equitable relief halting his dismissal from CMU along with compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages.

(No. 25-cv-10904, E.D. Michigan, filed March 31, 2025)

Description of the Case

This lawsuit concerns the upcoming Netflix show (produced by Warner Brothers) called Running Point. Running Point features a basketball team called the "Los Angeles Waves" with colors and branding that Pepperdine (whose mascot is also the "Waves") argues is strikingly similar to their own. As such, Pepperdine has filed this lawsuit against Netflix and Warner Bros for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, false advertising, and related California state laws and seeks injunctive relief preventing Running Point from being released unless the show can be modified to remove the allegedly infringing branding.

(No. 25-cv-01429, C.D. Cal., Judge Cynthia Valenzuela, filed February 20, 2025)

Description of the Case

Prior to their decision to join the Mountain West Conference starting in 2026, Grand Canyon University had previously been committed to join the West Coast Conference. As such, the West Coast Conference filed this breach of contract lawsuit seeking Grand Canyon's payment of both the entrance and withdrawal fees the conference feels they are owed under their original agreement.

(No. 24-cv-08933, N.D. Cal., Judge Charles R. Breyer, filed December 11, 2024)

Description of the Case

On the heels of failed negotiations to extend a football scheduling agreement between the two conferences from 2024 to 2025, the Pac-12 Conference filed this suit against the Mountain West Conference challening a so-called "poaching fee" contained within the 2024 scheduling agreement contract that requires the Pac-12 to pay the Mountain West for any Mountain West conference members induced to leave the Mountain West for the Pac-12. As the Pac-12 has recruited five Mountain West schools to date into its ranks (Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State, and Utah State), the Pac-12 owes $55 million to the Mountain West under this poaching penalty clause. The Pac-12 claims that the clause is anticompetitive in violation of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act and California Cartwright Antitrust Act and constitutes an unenforceable liquidated damages penalty clause, and is seeking a declaratory judgment as such.

(No. 24-cv-06685, N.D. Cal., Judge Susan van Keulen, filed September 24, 2024)

Description of the Case

The University of Southern California athletic department has been accused by Sony Music and various record labels of repeatedly infringing on the defendants' copyrighted songs by using them in various videos on social media accounts. According to Sony, there are over 250 videos posted by USC containing their copyrighted music across 30 USC social media pages. One example given in the complaint is the 2024 USC football season hype trailer, which used the song “Like That” by Future, Metro Boomin, and Kendrick Lamar. Sony argues that the violations have been willful, given the required copyright confirmation clickthrough required to post on various social media platforms include TikTok.

(No. 25-cv-02042, S.D.N.Y., Judge Gregory H. Woods, filed March 11, 2025)

Description of the Case

(No. 21-cv-01091, M.D. Pa., Judge Matthew W. Brann, filed June 21, 2021)

Vintage Brands is a company that designs apparel based on original designs that evoke the brands of various college football teams (including Penn State) but do not explicitly use their trademarks. Nevertheless, Penn State (along with various other universities) sued Vintage Brands and Sportswear (their manufacturer) for trademark infringment, arguing that the use and sale of art similar to university marks creates a likelihood of consumer confusion.

Description of the Case

After Michigan State sparked controversy by playing a quiz video on their videoboard at a football game that included a question about the birthday of Adolf Hitler, the owner of the video sued Michigan State, arguing copyright violations, false light invasion, and violations of the Fifth Amendment takings clause.

(No. 24-cv-00825, W.D. Mich., Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou, filed August 9, 2024)

Description of the Case

In this lawsuit filed on the opt-out deadline day for the House settlement, 67 athletes who have opted out of the settlement seek damages for broadcast NIL use by the NCAA and Power Five conferences and an injunction "restraining the NCAA and Conference Defendants from enforcing their unlawful and anticompetitive agreements to restrict the (a) compensation available to Division I student-athletes from the schools, conferences or third parties for their services or NILs; and (b) athletic scholarships available to Division I student-athletes." Notably, the case very clearly seeks to pick up where House v. NCAA left off prior to their settlement, as this complaint is largely copy-and-pasted from the House most recent amended complaint.

The lead plaintiff in this case is former Mississippi State football player Kylin Hill. 69 other athletes joined the case as co-plaintiffs.

(No. 25-cv-01011, N.D. Cal., Judge Rita F. Lin, filed January 31, 2025)

Description of the Case

In this lawsuit filed on the opt-out deadline day for the House settlement, 33 athletes who have opted out of the settlement seek damages pre-2021 restrictions on NIL use by the NCAA and Power Five conferences. This case clearly seeks to pick up where House v. NCAA left off prior to their settlement.

The lead plaintiff in this case is former Kentucky and Western Kentucky basketball player Dontaie Allen. 32 other athletes joined the case as co-plaintiffs.

(No. 25-cv-00014, E.D. Kentucky, filed January 31, 2025)

Description of the Case

The attorneys general of Tennessee and Virginia filed this lawsuit challenging the NCAA's NIL rules barring athletes from negotiating NIL deals with collectives and boosters prior to enrollment at an institution. The attorneys general claim that doing so restraints athletes' market power for NIL deals without justification.

Of note, this case has since been joined by the attorneys general of Florida, New York, and the District of Columbia.

(No. 24-CV-00033, E.D. Tenn., Judge Clifton L. Corker, filed January 31, 2024)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Cary Arbolida, a baseball player who recently enrolled at the Kansas State University. In a manner similar to Diego Pavia in Pavia v. NCAA, Arbolida seeks immediate injunctive relief stopping the NCAA from enforcing NCAA Bylaw 12.8.1 (the "Five-Year Rule") against him to allow him to play an additional two years (given his three years playing JUCO ball). He claims that he is entitled to similar relief as Pavia given his three years spent at Orange Coast College (2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22) prior to enrolling at the University of Houston (2022-23 and 2023-24), and the University of Tampa (2024-25). Following the Pavia ruling, he was recruited by and transfered to Kansas State and now seeks a waiver to allow him to play in the Spring 2025 and Spring 2026 seasons for Kansas State and take advantage of NIL opportunities, including a pled opportunity worth $50,000.

(No. 25-cv-02079, D. Kansas, Judge John W. Broomes, filed February 14, 2025)

Description of the Case

West Virginia basketball player RaeQuan Battle challenged the NCAA's (since rescinded) transfer policy, claiming that his hardship waiver that would have allowed his second transfer from Montana State to West Virginia was unjustly denied. He claims that the NCAA has violated his state tort and contract rights along with both federal and state antitrust law.

Of Battle's twelve causes of action, one -- his claim that the NCAA applied their policy arbitrarily -- was dismissed as duplicative of his breach of contract claims. His claims to a declaratory judgment and a restraining order have also been dismissed as moot given the NCAA's change in policy since he filed his lawsuit. The rest of his claims remain in the lawsuit.

(No. 23-cv-00101, N.D.W.V., District Judge John Preston Bailey, filed December 8, 2023)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Holly McLean, a golfer who transferred to the University of South Florida (USF) at the start of the Spring 2025 semester after she was told by her coaches at her former institution, the University of Oklahoma, that her scholarship would not be renewed due to the impending roster limits in the House v. NCAA settlement. McLean wishes to compete for USF in the Spring 2025 women's golf season, but is unable due to NCAA Bylaw 14.5.5.2 ("Competition in the Year of Transfer Rule"), which forbids athletes from playing for two institutions in one academic year. USF applied for a waiver on her behalf, but this waiver was denied. As such, McLean filed this lawsuit seeking an order that the NCAA cannot enforce this bylaw against her to prevent her from playing for USF in the Spring 2025 season.

(No. 25-cv-00431, M.D. Florida, Judge Mary S. Scriven, filed February 20, 2025)

Description of the Case

The plaintiff in this case is Dylan Goldstein, a baseball player who recently enrolled at the University of Georgia. In a manner similar to Diego Pavia in Pavia v. NCAA, Goldstein seeks immediate injunctive relief stopping the NCAA from enforcing NCAA Bylaw 12.8.1 (the "Five-Year Rule") against him to allow him to play an additional year (given his two years playing JUCO ball). He claims that he is entitled to similar relief as Pavia given his two years spent at Chipola College (2020-21 and 2021-22) prior to enrolling at the FLorida Atlantic University (2021-22 and 2022-23), and the University of Georgia (2023-24). Following the Pavia ruling, he wishes to play another season for Goergia to take advantage of NIL opportunities and the advantages of playing Division I college baseball.

(No. 25-tc-05000, 25-cv-00027, M.D. Georgia, Judge Tillman E Self, III, filed February 17, 2025)

Description of the Case

The College Basketball Players Association has filed a charge against the University of Notre Dame, alleging that the employer has violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by classfying college athletes as "student-athletes" rather than employees.

(No. 25-CA-340413, NLRB Region 25, filed April 18, 2024)

Description of the Case

This is a "copycat" lawsuit to Pavia v. NCAA filed by Southern Miss basketball player John Wade III; he also seeks a declaration that the combination of NCAA Bylaw 12.8 (granting four years of eligibility in five years regardless of whether the athlete is playing sports or playing at a non-NCAA school) and NCAA Bylaw 12.02.6 (defining intercollegiate competition as including competition at both four-year and two-year institutions) is illegal under antitrust law. Wade's reasoning is functionally identical to Pavia's, as he is looking for the same relief that Pavia was granted.

(No. 24-cv-00196, S.D. Miss., Judge Taylor B. McNeel, filed December 20, 2024)

Description of the Case

The fifteen members of the Dartmouth College men's basketball team filed a petition with the NLRB seeking to unionize as part of the Service Employees International Union, Local 560. While only statutory employees can unionize under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the athletes argue that the degree of control exercised by Dartmouth over their activities and the benefits derived by Dartmouth from their activities shows that they are employees, rather than mere students participating in an extracurricular activity.

(Nos. 01-RC-325633, 01-CA-348789, NLRB Region 1, filed September 13, 2023)

Description of the Case

Leading up to the filing of a motion for settlement in House v. NCAA, FCS school Houston Christian University filed a motion to intervene in the suit, arguing that the proposed settlement would cause them to breach their fidicuiary duties by causing them to divert funds from academics to athletics. They argued that none of the defendants (i.e., the NCAA) was adequately representing their interests in the case, as the NCAA had simply presented the settlement to them as a "fait accompli."

On July 24, 2024, Judge Wilken denied Houston Christian's motion to intervene, filing that the school had not shown a practical impairment to a claimed interest necessary to establish intervention as a matter of right and had not shown that they could not resolve their dispute within the NCAA's governance structure (or by leaving the NCAA) as necessary for permissive intervention. This appeal followed.

(No. 24-4843, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, filed MMMM DD, YYYY)

Description of the Case

Basketball players Matthew and Ryan Bewley filed suit against the NCAA over the denial of their amateurism certification due to their pre-college participation in Overtime Elite, a private high school that provided athletes (including the Bewleys) with compensation for their NIL and athletic services. The Bewleys claim that the NCAA violated antitrust law by preventing their entry into the college sports labor market without procompetitive justification.

(No. 23-cv-15570, N.D. Illinois, filed November 1, 2023)