Lawsuit Challenges NCAA And Conference NIL Restrictions As Antitrust Violations

On June 9, 2026, Talanoa Ili and Charlie Mirer, college football players at the University of Southern California and Stanford University, respectively, filed a class action lawsuit in the Northern District of California, challenging the landmark House settlement, which was approved last June. The complaint names as defendants the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), major college athletic conferences, and the College Sports Commission (CSC), among others, and alleges violation of state and federal antitrust laws in the implementation of new NCAA rules that restrict name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights.

In 2020, the plaintiffs in House claimed that the NCAA and major conferences committed antitrust violations by banning NIL payments, limiting scholarship numbers, and prohibiting athletes from sharing in the billions of dollars generated by broadcast and media rights for college sports. The parties negotiated an injunctive relief settlement that included rules attempting to standardize NIL compensation. Most notably, the settlement provided for the creation of CSC to serve as an independent regulatory and enforcement body designed to ensure that NIL deals reflect true fair market value rather than disguised pay-for-play recruiting inducements. On June 6, 2025, Judge Claudia Ann Wilken of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved the settlement. Critics of that settlement contend that these rules continue to suppress athletes’ NIL earnings and conflict with state laws in states that have statutes affording NIL rights.

The action brought by Ili and Mirer challenges the legality of the implementation of NIL restrictions imposed by the NCAA and conferences post-settlement. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants entered into a horizontal agreement — i.e., coordinated effort among competitors — to suppress NIL compensation below what would be achieved in a competitive market, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act. The plaintiffs further assert that the NCAA and conferences have significant market power controlling the primary platforms for NIL monetization, such as televised exposure and digital content. The plaintiffs also allege a vertical component of the agreement by virtue of the enforcement mechanism, such as by conditioning conference affiliation, athlete eligibility, and competitive participation on compliance with NIL restrictions.     

The plaintiffs contend that, by collectively agreeing to restrictions on NIL earnings, the defendants are engaging in an unlawful price-fixing conspiracy, which has direct anticompetitive effects like reducing NIL earnings for athletes and that these restrictions lack procompetitive justifications. The lawsuit seeks various remedies, including treble damages for the class of affected athletes, declarations that the defendants’ conduct violates federal and state antitrust laws, and injunctive relief to prevent future suppression of NIL earnings.  

The case hinges on the assertion that the NCAA and conferences engaged in a horizontal agreement that suppresses monies paid to athletes. Under antitrust law, such agreements are per se illegal if they have obvious anticompetitive effects. The complaint also explores the substantial market power held by the major college athletic conferences known as the “Power Four,” with the plaintiffs claiming that the ability of these conferences to enforce uniform restrictions across multiple states effectively eliminates competition in athlete NIL earnings, leading to below-market compensation levels. According to the plaintiffs, the restrictions are not justified by any procompetitive rationale, such as preventing sham deals or maintaining competitive balance, but are solely aimed at suppressing athlete earnings. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the defendants’ coordinated enforcement efforts, especially in California with its Fair Pay to Play Act, constitute an unlawful conspiracy and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.

If successful, the case could significantly alter the existing framework of college sports by directly challenging the NCAA’s traditional authority to unilaterally impose restrictions on athlete earnings and NIL rights. The case also underscores the tension between state legislation designed to empower athletes and the NCAA’s efforts to maintain a uniform set of rules for all athletes and member institutions. The action could also provide further impetus for legislative efforts in Congress, where both the Senate and the House have introduced comprehensive bills addressing NIL and the eligibility of college athletes under NCAA rules. The most recent of these bills, the Protect College Sports Act, has been scheduled for markup by the Senate Commerce Committee, with the panel expected to take up proposed amendments on June 18.

As the NIL landscape continues to shift and develop, Buchanan offers the necessary insight and guidance to help clients develop compliance programs, manage investigations, and avoid potential liability while remaining competitive in a rapidly changing market.