Duane Morris Takeaway: This week's episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and special counsel Samson Huang with their analysis of recent developments in the $2.78 billion settlement between the NCAA and college athletes to resolve name, image, likeness ("NIL") compensation claims.
Check out today's episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Podcast Index, Tune In, Listen Notes, iHeartRadio, Deezer, and YouTube.
Episode Transcript
Jerry Maatman: Thank you, loyal blog listeners, for joining us again for this week's edition of the Class Action Weekly Wire. I'm Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today from Los Angeles is my colleague, Samson Huang. Thanks very much for being on the podcast.
Samson Huang: Great to be here, Jerry. Thanks for having me.
Jerry: Today, we're here to discuss a recent court ruling relating to settlement approval of a ginormous class action involving the NCAA and the Power Five conference members, requiring them to pay $2.8 billion worth of damages, characterized as "back pay," to compensate student-athletes for the denial of name, image, and likeness – known as NIL – opportunities under prior NCAA eligibility rules. The settlement class, subject to certain exclusions, includes all D1 student-athletes who competed from 2016 to the present. Compensation will be distributed to account for the lost NIL, video game, and broadcast-related opportunities that were previously restricted under the NCAA rules.
The new compensation model will mirror elements, I believe, of professional sports leagues – perhaps marking the end of the era of "amateurs" in college athletics. But the settlement faced some legal impediments and challenges for objectors. Samson, what's the latest from the courthouse as to what's going on with this particular settlement approval process?
Samson: Sure, thanks, Jerry. The court's recent order addressed seven separate objections filed by incoming members of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Class following the July 23, 2025, notice. Under the Settlement Agreement, these class members could object within 60 days of receiving notice. The objections were heard on November 6, 2025, and the court ultimately rejected every objection.
Jerry: Let's, unpack that a little bit and talk about some of the specific objections, beginning with Katherine Ernst of Vanderbilt University. As I understand it, she had asserted some objections challenging the treatment of various benefits in the revenue-sharing pool cap, and objecting to the release of claims subject to the distribution in the Gross Settlement Fund.
Samson: That's right, and the court ultimately rejected the arguments as duplicative of issues already addressed by the court in the final approval order. Ernst also raised new objections related to Title IX compliance and her school's distribution of revenue-sharing payments, requesting court-imposed modifications to the Injunctive Relief Settlement.
Jerry: I thought it was interesting because the judge emphasized that it lacked authority to, in essence, rewrite the settlement agreement, which is what the Vanderbilt student issued. It cited a chestnut of Ninth Circuit caselaw, Hanlon v. Chrysler Corporation, in terms of the ability of a district court to review and approve or reject a class action settlement. So, in this particular situation, the Title IX claims were not released, and athletes may bring those claims independently, as I understand it.
Samson: Yes, that's right, Jerry. And also, Ernst additionally asserted that adequacy of representation was lacking, because none of the named plaintiffs are actually current student-athletes. However, the court reiterated its prior holding that the named plaintiffs share the same overarching interest as all class members of securing a more competitive labor market for college athletes. Moreover, the court has since appointed Miller Moss, who is an active D1 athlete, as an additional class representative, so the concern wasn't really a concern for the court.
Jerry: Another objection I found interesting was from a student-athlete from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, Gracelyn Laudermilch, and she had argued that class counsel, in essence, was asleep at the wheel, refused to assist her in filing objections and, thereby, that rendered class counsel inadequate. How did the court react to that particular challenge?
Samson: Well, the court rejected the theory. The court explained that class counsel do not represent objectors, and objectors may appear pro se representing themselves, or they may hire independent counsel. But that does not implicate the adequacy of Class Counsel's representation during settlement negotiations. Laudermilch also argued that the roster-limits provisions were adopted without adequate input from the named plaintiffs. However, the court found no support for that contention in the record. Named plaintiff Grant House provided a declaration confirming regular consultation with Class Counsel during negotiations. And statements attributed to him on a podcast were not actually before the court. Laudermilch further challenged the adequacy of the notice program, asserting that children as young as eight years old should receive notice of the settlement because they may one day participate in D1 athletics. The court rejected that position as well, finding that Rule 23 and due-process standards require notice that is reasonable and practical, and it is not feasible to identify future athletes who have not yet been recruited. The approved notice program, in which incoming D1 athletes receive notice upon joining their teams, was found by the court to be fully adequate.
Jerry: Well, I teach youngsters and coach them in Little League baseball, and that would be something for an 8-year-old to walk up to me and say, 'Mr. Maatman, I just got a notice from the court,' so we'll see how that works. I also thought that this particular athlete had challenged the roster-limit provisions on the grounds that athletes with DSA status were being cut, and the court held that she lacked standing because she herself had not been cut. And additionally, the DSA status had been intended to guarantee roster spots, but actually all it did is exempt affected athletes from roster limits when transferring to other D1 programs, and that raised another objector, and that was Reid Macdonald of Long Island University, who argued he was cut from the lacrosse team at his university, but not granted DSA status. How did the court react to that particular challenge?
Samson: Well, the court found that even assuming that his factual claims were accurate, that actually reflected a school-specific issue, and did not justify halting the nationwide settlement. The settlement required schools to identify DSAs in good faith, and to submit those lists to class counsel, who may address any inaccuracies.
Jerry: I know the final four objectors were from Cal Poly State University, and they were on the diving and swimming team, and their programs were eliminated after the university opted in. How did the court treat their objections?
Samson: Well, each objector argued that the Injunctive Relief Settlement caused or incentivized the program cuts, thereby harming their athletic opportunities and, in one case, the student's athletic scholarship. Several objectors also raised concerns about Title IX compliance. Again, the court rejected each objection on the same basis. Essentially, D1 schools have always retained discretion to allocate financial resources and eliminate sports programs, and nothing in the injunctive relief settlement requires or encourages team cuts. Therefore, any injury resulting from program elimination stems from each institution's own choice, not from the settlement. The court also reiterated that it cannot and does not have the power to modify the settlement to impose Title IX compliance mechanisms. And, because Title IX claims were not being released under the settlement, any affected athletes may pursue those claims separately.
Jerry: Pretty remarkable that a $2.8 billion settlement with extensive, injunctive relief was approved. Judge left it in place, it certainly represents a seismic shift in the regulation of college athletics and formalizes a compensation model for student athletes and introduces robust oversight with NIL activity. Remains to be seen if eighth graders on Little League baseball teams get a notice and what they do with it, but certainly quite a ruling when it comes to settlement approval orders in 2025.
Samson: Absolutely, Jerry, and colleges, collectives, and student-athletes must now carefully navigate this evolving regulatory environment. Institutions should consult with counsel to address these considerations and develop strategies, including draft template agreements, that adequately address all of these considerations to optimally position institutions to comply with and profit from this new opportunity.
Jerry: Well, thanks so much, Samson, for joining us on this week's Class Action Weekly Wire, and breaking down a very complex yet important settlement. As our readers know, Chapter 20 of the Duane Morris Class Action Review contains an analysis of settlement approval rulings throughout federal and state courts and class actions over the past year. And by far and away, this one is one of the most complex and most significant in terms of what we're going to discuss in that chapter – our book being launched in the first week of January of 2026. So, thank you, Samson, and thank you, all our listeners, for joining us this week.
Samson: Thanks, Jerry, it was a pleasure.
Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.
