Athlete Case Targeting NCAA $2.8 Billion Deal Floats New Theory

An antitrust lawsuit challenging the cap on name, image, and likeness payments tied to the NCAA’s $2.8 billion deal with student-athletes presents a novel approach that threatens to upend the court-approved deal, antitrust attorneys say.

Two football players sued the NCAA and four athletic conferences in the US District Court for the Northern District of California on Tuesday, claiming they agreed to cap NIL pay for college athletes, despite knowing those restrictions were prohibited under laws in California and other states.

Those allegations—that the NIL restrictions were enforced even though state law dictates otherwise—is an innovative theory, antitrust lawyers say. Filing an independent suit, instead of appealing, also opens the door to potential discovery and damages.

“They are effectively trying to unwind the settlement by filing this separate action; it’s an indirect way of getting at it,” said Lauren Briggerman, antitrust partner with Squire Patton Boggs. “It certainly seems like a novel theory.”

The proposed class action comes as the “House” settlement is appealed in the Ninth Circuit on issues including Title IX.

The new suit was filed one year after a federal court gave final approval to the $2.8 billion deal that allowed colleges to share revenue with student-athletes for the first time. The plaintiffs say that the court declined to find that the settlement preempted state law, and “thus that implementing NIL restrictions would violate state law.”

The College Sports Commission, which enforces rules around third-party NIL deals with a value of $600 or more, is also a defendant. The NCAA and CSC didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. The Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, and Southeastern Conference are also defendants.

Jeffrey Kessler, an attorney who represented the student-athletes in the $2.8 billion deal, declined to comment.

Plaintiff Claims

Talanoa Ili, a linebacker at USC, and Charlie Mirer, quarterback for Stanford, allege they will suffer suppressed NIL compensation in future academic years due to the “ongoing conspiracy.”

It makes sense for the plaintiffs to sue because, unlike in an appeal, they can get broad discovery privileges if their case gets past the motion-to-dismiss stage, “and that’s a big if,” said Matthew Cantor, founding partner of Shinder Cantor Lerner.

“In an objection process, you don’t really have that right to conduct discovery,” Cantor said.

The plaintiffs suing might be able to find documents where people at the NCAA are saying “we are going to agree to these salary cap limits. Can we get past antitrust review?” Cantor said.

Suing the NCAA is a more concrete path to pursue damages, Cantor said.

The settlement didn’t preclude future claims for damages, said Eric Cramer, chairman of Berger Montague, one of the firms representing the plaintiffs in the case.

“We’re doing what the settlement allowed us to do,” Cramer, whose firm didn’t represent any objectors, said. “Also, many of the parties to the settlement told the court that it may be necessary for Congress to pass a bill to preclude state law. And there are 17 states that have laws that prevent restrictions on NIL.”

Michael Lowe, litigation partner with Troutman Pepper Locke, said he’s not surprised that the case has been filed, given that state laws clearly conflict with what the NCAA and the plaintiffs’ attorneys wanted to accomplish with the settlement.

The NCAA really needed Congress to pass legislation to help enforce the settlement but those efforts fell through, Lowe said.

“Congress hasn’t been able to give them the surgery they need yet,” he said.

NCAA Defense

The NCAA and the other defendants will argue the plaintiffs can’t bring an antitrust claim because they have already released such claims in the settlement, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Cantor added that the NCAA is likely to defend itself by saying it’s protected under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which provides private parties immunity when they try to influence governmental action, such as lobbying for or against the passage of a law.

“They’re immunized because they did all this in a public forum,” Cantor said.

The plaintiffs are also represented by Freedman Normand Friedland LLP.

The case is Talanoa v. NCAA, N.D. Cal., No. 3:26-cv-05562, complaint 6/9/26.