Full Federal Lawsuit: 4 Michigan Players and NIL Money

Case 2:24-cv-12355-TGB-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.
1 Filed 09/10/24 Page 1 of 73
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
DENARD ROBINSON; BRAYLON Case No.:

EDWARDS; MICHAEL MARTIN;
SHAWN CRABLE, Individually and on
behalf of themselves and former University
of Michigan football players similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC

ASSOCIATION aka “NCAA”; BIG TEN
NETWORK “aka” BTN,
Defendants.
CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, PLC
BY: JAMES R. ACHO (P62175)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
17436 College Parkway, 3rd Floor
Livonia, MI 48152
734-261-2400 / 734-261-4510 fax
[email protected]
COMPLAINT
CLASS ACTION
(Jury Trial Demanded)
NOW COME Plaintiffs, DENARD ROBINSON (“Robinson”);
BRAYLON EDWARDS (“Edwards”); MICHAEL MARTIN (“Martin”);
SHAWN CRABLE (“Crable”) (sometimes collectively referred to as
“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, James R. Acho and CUMMINGS,
{02126348-1 }
Case 2:24-cv-12355-TGB-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 09/10/24 Page 2 of 73
MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, PLC and for their complaint against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association aka NCAA (“NCAA”) and Big Ten Network
(“BTN”) state that:
INTRODUCTION
This is a Class Action on behalf of all former University of Michigan Football
players who played prior to 2016. It seeks to right a wrong perpetuated on college
athletes for decades.
The University of Michigan Football program is arguably the most iconic in
college football history. It is undoubtedly the most recognized brand nationally.
Storied teams, legendary players, and some of the most historic moments in the
sport's history were created by the Michigan Program and its players – specifically
by the players, many of whom are among the most notable names in the sport's
history. While today, it is accepted and understood that current college football
players are allowed to be compensated monetarily, especially for using their name,
image, and likeness (sometimes referred to as “NIL”), players were wrongfully and
unlawfully prevented from doing so for decades. The NCAA knew it was wrong but
still continued to profit. When Brian Bosworth famously wore a shirt in the 1980s
on the sideline of the National Championship game, with the shirt saying “NCAA”
stands for “National Communists Against Athletes,” it drew guffaws from older
fans, but players nodded in agreement; they knew thirty-five (35) years ago that
2
{02126348-1 }
preventing them from capitalizing in the most valuable thing they have – their name,
image, and likeness was wrong. Not just wrong, but unlawful. This action seeks to
compensate former Michigan players and rectify that unlawful wrong.
PARTIES, VENUE AND JURISDICTION
1. Denard Robinson is a former NCAA student-athlete who played
football at the University of Michigan from 2009 to 2012. Originally from Deerfield
Beach, Florida, Robinson now resides in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Robinson became a
household name in college football, earning the nickname "Shoelace" for his habit
of playing with untied cleats. Robinson’s legacy as a Michigan quarterback is firmly
established in the record books. He still holds several key records, including the most
rushing yards by a quarterback in NCAA history, the most total yards in a single
season in Michigan’s storied history, and the most rushing touchdowns by a
quarterback at Michigan. Robinson also holds the Michigan record for the most 200-
yard rushing games by a quarterback and the longest run from scrimmage by a
quarterback. His dual-threat capability and electrifying performances have left an
indelible mark on the program, ensuring his place among the all-time greats. These
iconic moments have been repeatedly shown and replayed on BTN and related
networks, helping continue the fascination and passion of the sport. They have
significantly contributed to the revenue generated by the NCAA and its partners.
Despite his pivotal role in creating these commercially valuable moments, Robinson
3
{02126348-1 }
has never received compensation and was NOT allowed to capitalize monetarily for
the use of his name, image, and likeness and lost out on several million dollars.
2. Braylon Edwards is a former NCAA student-athlete who played
football at the University of Michigan from 2001 to 2004. Originally from Detroit,
Michigan, Edwards now resides in Beverly Hills, Michigan. Edwards, an
electrifying wide receiver captivated audiences with his remarkable athleticism,
speed, and game-changing plays. Known for his exceptional catching ability and
clutch performances, Edwards delivered some of the most unforgettable moments in
Michigan football history. His iconic three-touchdown game against Michigan State
in 2004 remains a staple in highlight reels and has been replayed countless times
across television broadcasts, online platforms, and promotional materials. These
moments have driven substantial commercial revenue for the NCAA and its
broadcasting partners. Despite his significant contributions and the ongoing use of
his name, image, and likeness to generate profits, Edwards has never been
compensated for the commercialization of his personal attributes and was NOT
allowed to capitalize monetarily for the use of his name, image, and likeness and lost
out on several million dollars.
3. Michael Martin is a former NCAA student-athlete who played football
at the University of Michigan from 2008 to 2011. Born and raised in Redford
Township, Michigan, Martin currently resides in Canton, Michigan. Martin, a
4
{02126348-1 }
formidable defensive lineman, was celebrated for his powerful presence on the field,
relentless pursuit of quarterbacks, and ability to disrupt opposing offenses. His
leadership qualities made him a cornerstone of the Wolverines’ defense. Martin
earned numerous accolades, including All-Big Ten honors, and played a pivotal role
in memorable victories, such as the 2011 win over Notre Dame. His commanding
performances and game-changing plays, including powerful tackles, have been
showcased in numerous highlight reels and promotional videos, generating
significant revenue for the NCAA and its partners. Despite his substantial
contributions and the repeated broadcast of his highlights, Martin has never been
compensated for the commercial use of his name, image, and likeness, drawing
viewers and advertisers alike without receiving any share of the profits.
4. Shawn Crable is a former NCAA student-athlete who played football at
the University of Michigan from 2003 to 2007. Originally from Massillon, Ohio,
Crable currently resides in Canton, Ohio. Crable, a dominant linebacker, was
renowned for his exceptional defensive skills, including his relentless pursuit of
quarterbacks and game-changing tackles. Crable’s powerful presence and leadership
on the field were pivotal in key victories, such as his memorable sack against Penn
State in 2005 that helped secure a crucial win. His standout performances have been
immortalized in numerous highlight reels, which continue to be replayed across
television broadcasts, online platforms, and promotional materials, generating
5
{02126348-1 }
significant revenue for the NCAA and its partners. Despite his critical contributions
and the ongoing commercial use of his name, image, and likeness, Crable has never
received compensation for the exploitation of his personal attributes, which have
been utilized to attract viewers and generate profits for the NCAA and its affiliates.
5. Numerous other former University of Michigan football players have
similarly created unforgettable moments that the NCAA and its partners have
repeatedly monetized. The team has a rich history of delivering clutch performances
that have become integral to Wolverine lore. From the 1969 win over Ohio State that
shocked a nation of football fans, to the unforgettable 1991 game featuring the iconic
"Heisman" pose, the 1997 national championship-clinching win over Ohio State, and
the Tom Brady-led thrilling victory in the 2000 Orange Bowl against Alabama, the
team’s legacy is built on moments of exceptional talent and competitive spirit. The
named Plaintiffs, and other former University of Michigan football players have seen
their names, images, and likenesses used by the NCAA and its partners without
consent or compensation, resulting in significant financial and personal harm.
6. Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is an
unincorporated association headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. The NCAA
oversees more than 1,100 member schools, including the University of Michigan,
and regulates intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA generates substantial revenue
through the commercialization of student-athletes’ performances and identities, yet
6
{02126348-1 }
it does so without providing fair compensation to the athletes themselves.
7. Defendant Big Ten Network (BTN) is a multi-platform sports network
dedicated to broadcasting and promoting collegiate athletics, specifically those of
the Big Ten Conference, which includes the University of Michigan. BTN is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, and operates as a joint venture between the Big
Ten Conference and Fox Sports. Since its inception, BTN has profited substantially
from the broadcast and commercial distribution of football and other collegiate
sporting events. This includes live games, replays, highlight reels, documentaries,
and promotional content featuring student-athletes from the University of Michigan
and other Big Ten institutions. BTN actively engages in the commercialization of
student-athletes’ performances and identities by licensing their games for national
and international broadcasts, selling advertisements, and promoting subscriptions to
its platform. Despite these lucrative activities, BTN has failed to provide any form
of compensation to the student-athletes whose names, images, and likenesses it
regularly exploits for profit, contributing to the broader systemic exploitation within
collegiate athletics.
8. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
(federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1337 (commerce and antitrust regulation), as this
action arises under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and Sections 4 and
16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15(a) and 26. The claims involve significant
7
{02126348-1 }
questions of federal law, including the interpretation and application of antitrust
statutes designed to protect competition and prevent unfair trade practices.
9. The Court also has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. §
1332(d) in that this is a Class action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the
sum of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and in which some of the
members of the proposed Class are citizens of a state different from Defendants. The
diversity of citizenship between the Plaintiffs and Defendants further establishes
federal jurisdiction.
10. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they have
transacted business within the state of Michigan, including organizing intercollegiate
athletics contests, marketing, promoting, licensing or selling merchandise, and
engaging in substantial contacts within the state. The Defendants’ activities in
Michigan, including their direct commercial exploitation of University of Michigan
student-athletes, provide a sufficient nexus to establish personal jurisdiction.
11. Venue is appropriate in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) & (c)
and in Sections 4 and 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 22. Venue is proper
because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims
occurred within this District, including the exploitation of University of Michigan
student-athletes and the broadcasting of their games. Additionally, several Plaintiffs
reside in this District, and the Defendants conduct substantial business here, further
8
{02126348-1 }
justifying the selection of this venue.
12. The NCAA’s practices of exploiting student-athletes’ names, images,
and likenesses without compensation, as well as its agreements with its member
institutions and broadcasting partners, have had a direct and substantial impact on
commerce within this District. The commercial activities related to these practices,
including broadcasting and merchandising, are central to the claims presented in this
Complaint and underscore the appropriateness of this jurisdiction and venue.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
13. Michigan’s 1997 season, which featured the iconic punt return
touchdown by its Heisman-winning player, against Ohio State, remains a pinnacle
of college football history. This game, part of the intense and storied Michigan-Ohio
State rivalry, has been replayed countless times across various media platforms,
generating substantial revenue for the NCAA and its broadcasting partners. The
annual clash between these two football powerhouses, often televised nationally, has
consistently drawn massive audiences. The Michigan-Ohio State game, known as
"The Game," is one of the most historic and fiercely contested rivalries in college
football, often with significant implications for conference titles and national
championships. The 1997 season not only secured this former team’s place in history
but also significantly boosted viewership and advertising revenue, contributing to
the NCAA’s financial success.
9
{02126348-1 }
14. These named former student-athletes like Denard Robinson, Michael
Martin, Braylon Edwards, and Shawn Crable, as well as countless other ex-Michigan
football players, have made significant contributions, with their game-winning plays
and electrifying performances frequently featured in highlight reels and promotional
content, as detailed in this Complaint. These moments continue to attract viewers
and boost merchandise sales as the NCAA capitalizes on the compelling stories of
these Michigan legends. Additionally, the team’s successes led by other Michigan
greats like Tom Harmon, Anthony Carter, Tom Brady, Charles Woodson, Desmond
Howard, and many more further highlight the program’s storied tradition,
showcasing national championships, Heisman trophies, and legendary victories that
reinforce the powerful legacy left by these athletes and their teams, who have all left
an indelible mark on the program.
15. However, it is not only the star athletes who have been wronged.
Countless other former University of Michigan football players, who may not have
achieved the same level of fame, have also contributed significantly to the rich
history and success of University of Michigan football. Their memorable plays and
pivotal moments have been utilized in broadcasts, promotions, and merchandise,
driving revenue without any compensation. These student-athletes, often
overshadowed by the more prominent names, have equally been denied their fair
share of the profits generated from their hard work and talent. The exploitation
10
{02126348-1 }
extends beyond the big names to include every student-athlete who has ever taken
the field and created value for the NCAA. Irrespective of national fame, most of
these players would have capitalized and earned money on their name and image in
the small window that was their college football career. They were wrongfully and
unlawfully denied from doing so.
16. The history of Michigan football is replete with monumental games and
iconic plays that have not only defined the sport but also driven the NCAA’s
commercial success. From Bo Schembechler’s “Ten Year War” against Ohio State’s
Woody Hayes to the modern era’s unforgettable matchups, these televised rivalries
have been a cornerstone of college football’s popularity. The NCAA has extensively
monetized these moments, replaying them across various platforms, selling related
merchandise, and promoting them in advertisements, all while the athletes
themselves have not received compensation for the use of their names, images, and
likenesses.
17. This practice of exploiting not just individual players, but the historic
and emotionally charged rivalries, which form the bedrock of college football’s
appeal, underscores the systematic inequity inherent in the NCAA’s policies. The
organization has profited immensely from the talents and achievements of the
University of Michigan’s football legends, leveraging their contributions to attract
millions of viewers, secure lucrative broadcasting deals, and sell a wide array of
11
{02126348-1 }
merchandise. Despite their critical roles in creating these commercially valuable
moments, the athletes have been denied their rightful share of the profits. This
fundamental injustice, affecting both well-known and lesser-known athletes, is a
central issue that this Complaint seeks to address and rectify.
18. The Defendants, including the NCAA, Big Ten Network, and its agents
and subsidiaries, have systematically exploited these iconic moments that these
Class Members have created without compensating the student-athletes who created
them. These organizations have monetized the athletic feats of Martin, Robinson,
Edwards, Crable, and countless other University of Michigan football players by
broadcasting, advertising, and selling merchandise featuring their performances, all
without their consent or any form of remuneration. Defendants have used the images
and videos of Plaintiffs and similarly situated Class Members to advertise for their
commercial purposes without the athletes’ consent and while paying them nothing.
19. The NCAA football season, heavily promoted through the use of these
highlights and key moments, generates billions of dollars annually. Yet the student-
athletes whose blood, sweat, and tears drive this revenue see none of it. For example,
NCAA.com and affiliated websites host numerous videos showcasing these former
players. Robinson's electrifying "Shoelace" moments, Martin's defensive dominance
and his iconic celebration after a triple-overtime victory—broadcast repeatedly
across the country by BTN and other networks—Edwards' spectacular catches, and
12
{02126348-1 }
Crable’s game-changing defensive plays, including the unforgettable hit on Ohio
State's Troy Smith that has been replayed thousands of times. These moments and
countless highlights from other former University of Michigan football players
continue to draw millions of views, generating substantial advertising revenue for
media platforms. Yet, despite their pivotal role in creating this revenue, these athletes
have received none of the financial benefits from their contributions.
20. The NCAA generates billions of dollars annually, with a substantial
portion derived from media contracts, such as its partnership with BTN. BTN alone
generates hundreds of millions of dollars from broadcasting rights, advertising, and
subscription fees, particularly from high-profile games involving Michigan football.
BTN has broadcasted current and Class Michigan Football games since 2006. The
Michigan-Ohio State rivalry, one of the highest-grossing annual events, attracts
millions of viewers and secures lucrative advertising deals. Despite this
overwhelming financial success, none of the student-athletes whose performances
are central to this revenue receive any compensation. This stark economic imbalance
underscores the NCAA’s and BTN’s systematic exploitation of student-athletes, who
are denied the financial benefits that their contributions create.
21. NCAA rules require student-athletes to sign forms that effectively
transfer their publicity rights to the NCAA. These forms, presented as a non-
negotiable condition of participation, strip student-athletes of their ability to control
13
{02126348-1 }
the use of their names, images, and likenesses. This practice ensures that the NCAA
and its partners can exploit these rights indefinitely, without ever compensating the
student-athletes whose talents and hard work generate substantial revenue. The
United States Supreme Court, in Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Alston, 594 U.S.
69, 90 (2021), noted that the NCAA “enjoy[s] monopsony [(i.e., buyer-side
monopoly)] power in the market for student-athlete services, such that its restraints
can (and in fact do) harm competition.” The NCAA admitted as much in its briefing
for Alston.
22. The named Plaintiffs, represent a broader Class of former NCAA
student-athletes who have been similarly exploited. These athletes, who committed
themselves to their sports and their education, have been denied the opportunity to
benefit financially from their own identities. The NCAA has conspired with
conferences, colleges, licensing companies, and apparel companies to fix the price
of student-athlete labor near zero and make student-athletes unwitting and
uncompensated lifetime pitchmen for the NCAA. This Complaint seeks to address
this systemic injustice by holding the NCAA, its partners, and affiliates accountable
for their actions.
23. The Plaintiffs’ claims are grounded in well-established legal principles,
including the right to publicity, which protects individuals from unauthorized
commercial use of their identities. The NCAA and BTN’s unauthorized use of the
14
{02126348-1 }
Plaintiffs’ names, images, and likenesses violates this right and constitutes unjust
enrichment at the expense of the student-athletes. This conduct constitutes
unreasonable restraint of trade, illegal monopolization, tortious misappropriation of
publicity rights, and unjust enrichment.
24. This Complaint aims to rectify Defendants’ systematic exploitation of
Class Members by obtaining compensation for the commercial use of their personal
attributes and an injunction to prevent future misappropriation. The relief sought
includes declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and
an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
25. By bringing this action, the Plaintiffs seek to protect future generations
of student-athletes from similar exploitation, ensuring that they can benefit from
their hard work and talent both during and after their collegiate careers and for as
long as Defendants profit from them. The NCAA’s illegal profit scheme is carried
out through various partners and co-conspirators, some of whom are known and
some unknown.
26. The NCAA’s Constitution claims to protect student-athletes from
exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises. However, the organization
has exploited former student-athletes for decades by requiring them to cede their
rights to their names, images, and likenesses and then appropriating those rights
without compensation long after the student-athletes have graduated.
15
{02126348-1 }
27. Article 2.9 of the NCAA Constitution states that "student-athletes
should be protected from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises."
Despite this, the NCAA has and continues to exploit former student-athletes’
publicity rights for commercial gain. The NCAA’s actions demonstrate a clear, self-
serving exploitation, highlighting a deceptive and exploitive conflict between its
professed mission and its actual practices.
28. The NCAA’s exploitation of former student-athletes’ names, images,
and likenesses has generated substantial revenue through various means, including
television broadcasts, advertisements, and online content. For example, the NCAA
and its Co-Defendants, including BTN, have repeatedly used footage of iconic
moments from University of Michigan football games for commercial purposes.
These uses have included highlight reels, promotional videos, and digital content,
all of which generate significant advertising revenue.
29. The NCAA’s requirement that student-athletes waive their publicity
rights is not a mere formality; it is a coercive practice that forces young and
financially unsophisticated student-athletes, often with dreams of professional sports
careers, to give up their rights under duress. This practice is fundamentally unfair
and contrary to the principles of equity and justice. The United States Court of
Appeals In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 724 F.3d
1268 (9th Cir. 2013) recognized the inherent coercion in such practices, ruling that
16
{02126348-1 }
the NCAA’s use of student-athlete likenesses in video games without consent
constituted a violation of their right of publicity.
30. The NCAA’s exploitation extends beyond television broadcasts. The
organization and its Co-Defendant profit from merchandise sales, video game
licensing, and other commercial uses of the student-athletes’ identities. The athletes,
however, receive no share of this substantial revenue. This exploitation is evident in
cases such as O’Bannon v. NCAA, 802 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2015), where the court
found that the NCAA’s compensation rules violated antitrust law by preventing
student-athletes from receiving a share of the revenue generated from their own
likenesses.
31. The NCAA’s practices have been challenged legally and publicly.
Numerous lawsuits and media reports have highlighted the exploitative nature of the
NCAA’s control over student-athletes’ publicity rights, yet the organization has
persisted in its practices. The persistence of these practices despite legal challenges
underscores the entrenched nature of the NCAA’s exploitative model. “The NCAA
is not above the law.” (Alston, 594 U.S. at 112 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring)).
32. The Plaintiffs, representing a Class of similarly situated former
University of Michigan football players, seek to hold the NCAA accountable for its
actions and obtain injunctive relief and just compensation for the unauthorized use
of their names, images, and likenesses. The Plaintiffs’ claims are supported by legal
17
{02126348-1 }
precedent and the fundamental principles of equity and justice.
33. This action seeks to correct the systemic injustices perpetuated by the
NCAA and to establish legal protections for future student-athletes. The Plaintiffs
seek compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and any other relief this
Court deems just and proper. The relief sought aims to restore the Plaintiffs’ rights
and to prevent further exploitation of student-athletes by the NCAA.
34. The relief sought by the Plaintiffs includes a declaration that any
assignment of publicity rights induced by the NCAA, its partners, and affiliates,
including BTN, is unlawful and unenforceable. Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek a
permanent injunction enjoining the NCAA and any person or entity acting through
it from relying on any unenforceable assignment of publicity rights.
35. The Plaintiffs further seek a declaration of entitlement to a present and
future share of any revenue generated from the use of their publicity rights, including
but not limited to the use of their name, image, and likeness. The Plaintiffs also seek
compensation for any revenue generated from the use of their past publicity rights,
including but not limited to the use of their name, image, and likeness during their
period of eligibility and after through licensing, marketing, promotion, online, or
other income streams known, and that will become known through discovery, that
Class Members would have received absent the NCAA’s unlawful conduct.
36. The Plaintiffs’ claims are based on the NCAA’s long-standing practices
18
{02126348-1 }
and agreements that restrict student-athletes’ ability to monetize their identities.
These practices and agreements constitute unreasonable restraints of trade and have
resulted in substantial financial harm to the Plaintiffs and the Class they represent.
37. By addressing these systemic issues, this lawsuit seeks not only to
provide relief to the Plaintiffs and the Class by ensuring fairness and equity for those
who contribute their talents and efforts to collegiate sports and deserve to share in
the revenues generated by their performances but also to reform the NCAA's
practices to prevent future exploitation of student-athletes.
38. The NCAA and its named and unnamed co-conspirators have
systematically and intentionally misappropriated the publicity rights of Denard
Robinson, Michael Martin, Braylon Edwards, Shawn Crable and other Class
Members by using their names, images, and likenesses for commercial purposes
without their consent or compensation. This misappropriation has resulted in
significant revenue for the NCAA and its partners while depriving the student-
athletes of their rightful earnings. Such actions constitute clear antitrust injury as
they deprive the marketplace of independent centers of decision-making and
potential competition.
39. The NCAA was founded in 1906 with the primary purpose of protecting
student-athletes’ health, safety and welfare in response to the brutality of college
football games. Over time, The NCAA’s focus shifted to protecting “amateurism” in
19
{02126348-1 }
college athletics by imposing rules and limits on recruitment, financial aid, and
academic performance standards. This shift has allowed the NCAA to exert
substantial control over the terms and conditions of student-athlete participation in
college sports, ultimately enabling the exploitation of student-athletes’ publicity
rights for commercial gain.
40. The NCAA oversees more than 1,100 member schools and a half
million student-athletes, sponsoring over 90 national championships in 24 sports.
The NCAA generates significant revenue from television and marketing rights for
these championships, including the highly lucrative NCAA football season. This
revenue is derived in large part from the commercial use of student-athletes’ names,
images, and likenesses, despite the NCAA’s claims of protecting these athletes from
commercial exploitation.
41. The NCAA’s constitution claims to protect student-athletes from
exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises. However, the organization
has exploited former student-athletes for decades by requiring them to cede their
rights to their names, images, and likenesses, and then appropriating those rights
without compensation long after the student-athletes have graduated. This
exploitation is contrary to the principles of equity and justice and undermines the
stated mission of the NCAA, as evidenced by its continued generation of profit from
such practices.
20
{02126348-1 }
42. As previously mentioned, Article 2.9 of the NCAA constitution states
that "student-athletes should be protected from exploitation by professional and
commercial enterprises." Despite this, the NCAA has continued to exploit former
student-athletes’ publicity rights for commercial gain. The NCAA’s actions
demonstrate a clear contradiction between its stated mission and its actual practices,
highlighting the need for judicial intervention to uphold these principles and protect
the rights of student-athletes.
43. The NCAA’s exploitation of former student-athletes’ names, images,
and likenesses has generated substantial revenue through various means, including
television broadcasts, advertisements, and online content. For example, the NCAA,
BTN, their partners, and affiliates have repeatedly used footage of Plaintiffs’ and
other Class Members’ iconic moments from University of Michigan football games
for commercial purposes. These uses have included highlight reels, promotional
videos, and digital content, all of which generate significant advertising revenue
without compensating the student-athletes involved.
44. Denard Robinson’s record-setting performances and game-winning
plays, Braylon Edwards’ spectacular catches and memorable touchdowns, Michael
Martin’s standout defensive plays and leadership on the field, Shawn Crable’s game-
changing defensive maneuvers and other Class Member highlights have all been
extensively used in promotional materials and commercial broadcasts by the NCAA,
21
{02126348-1 }
its partners and affiliates. These uses include, but are not limited to, highlight reels,
promotional videos, and digital content available on the NCAA.com website. Each
student-athlete contributed to some of the most iconic moments in University of
Michigan football history, which have been repeatedly showcased to generate
substantial advertising revenue. However, despite their significant contributions,
these student-athletes have been denied any share of the profits, which the NCAA
and its affiliates continue to reap.
45. The NCAA’s illegal conduct has deprived Robinson, Martin, Edwards,
Crable, and numerous other former University of Michigan football players of
substantial profits they would have otherwise earned from their publicity rights. This
exploitation is aimed primarily at generating profit for the NCAA and its partners.
The substantial revenue generated from these commercial uses has not been shared
with the student-athletes, who are the rightful owners of these rights. This clear
antitrust injury demonstrates the NCAA’s collusion to deny these athletes the market
benefits they rightfully deserve, perpetuating a systematic injustice against those
who have significantly contributed to the NCAA’s financial success.
46. The NCAA controls virtually all collegiate sports, especially at the elite
levels, and it controls access to scholarship funds for Division I student-athletes.
NCAA Division I schools, such as the University of Michigan, provide the major
pathway to professional sports for most student-athletes. This control over the
22
{02126348-1 }
pathway to professional sports gives the NCAA significant leverage over student-
athletes, who must comply with its rules to pursue their athletic careers, thereby
perpetuating the coercive practice of forcing student-athletes to sign away their
publicity rights.
47. The NCAA and its co-conspirators have leveraged their monopoly
power in the market for student-athlete services to exploit student-athletes from the
time before they enter college until long after they end their collegiate careers. This
exploitation continues to this day, with Defendants continuing to use former student-
athletes’ names, images, and likenesses for commercial purposes without their
consent and without compensating them. The continuing nature of this exploitation
underscores the need for judicial intervention to protect student-athletes’ rights and
address the systemic injustices perpetrated by the NCAA.
48. The NCAA’s mandate that student-athletes relinquish their publicity
rights is far from a mere procedural requirement. It is a coercive tactic that pressures
young student-athletes, many of whom harbor aspirations of professional sports
careers, to forfeit their rights under duress. This practice is intrinsically unfair and
violates principles of equity and justice. The United States Court of Appeals In re
NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 724 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir.
2013) recognized the coercive nature of these practices, ruling that the NCAA’s
unauthorized use of student-athlete likenesses in video games constituted a violation
23
{02126348-1 }
of their right of publicity.
49. The NCAA’s exploitation extends well beyond television broadcasts.
The organization, along with its partners and affiliates, reaps significant profits from
merchandise sales, video game licensing, and various other commercial uses of
student-athletes’ identities. Meanwhile, the student-athletes themselves receive no
portion of this substantial revenue. This blatant exploitation is evident in cases such
as O’Bannon v. NCAA, 802 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2015), where the court determined
that the NCAA’s compensation rules breached antitrust laws by preventing student-
athletes from obtaining a share of the revenue generated from their own likenesses.
50. Despite facing other legal and public challenges, the NCAA has
continued its exploitative practices. Numerous lawsuits and media reports have
highlighted the exploitative nature of the NCAA’s control over student-athletes’
publicity rights. Yet, the organization has remained steadfast in its practices,
underscoring the entrenched nature of its exploitative model. This persistence,
despite mounting legal challenges, necessitates further legal action to safeguard the
rights of student-athletes.
51. The Plaintiffs, representing a Class of similarly situated former NCAA
student-athletes, seek to hold the NCAA accountable for its actions and to secure
just compensation for the unauthorized use of their names, images, and likenesses.
The Plaintiffs’ claims are underpinned by robust legal precedent and fundamental
24
{02126348-1 }
principles of equity and justice. This lawsuit aims to address the systemic injustices
perpetuated by the NCAA and to establish legal protections for future student-
athletes.
52. The NCAA and its named and unnamed co-conspirators have illegally
agreed to exploit student-athletes by using their monopoly power to force student-
athletes to give up their legal right of publicity and control of their name, image, and
likeness, asserting a perpetual license of student-athletes’ NIL rights; and
appropriating those rights for decades, long after the athletes have completed their
collegiate careers. This collusion and exploitation are directly aimed at generating
substantial profits for the NCAA and its partners at the expense of the athletes’ rights
and potential earnings.
53. The NCAA’s foundational purpose was to protect the health and safety
of student-athletes, a mission that has been overshadowed by its current focus on
protecting “amateurism” and controlling the commercialization of college athletics.
This shift has enabled the NCAA to impose restrictive rules that prevent student-
athletes from benefiting financially from their own names, images, and likenesses
while allowing the organization to profit immensely from these very attributes.
54. The NCAA’s financial disclosures reveal a stark contradiction between
its stated mission and its actions. In its Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
for August 31, 2023, the NCAA identifies itself as “the organization through which
25
{02126348-1 }
colleges and universities of the nation speak and act on athletic matters at the
national level.” The organization claims its mission is to “[p]rovide a world-Class
athletics and academic experience for student-athletes that fosters lifelong well-
being.” Despite this, the NCAA’s primary revenue sources include television and
marketing rights, highlighting its commercial interests and the exploitation of
student-athletes’ publicity rights.
55. The NCAA’s Constitution and Bylaws, including Section 12.5, which
addresses athletes’ participation in promotional activities, explicitly forbid the
commercial use of student-athletes’ names, images, or likenesses without their
consent. However, the NCAA has systematically violated these rules by coercing
student-athletes into signing forms that relinquish their rights and then exploiting
these rights for commercial gain without any compensation to the athletes.
56. The NCAA’s practices have not only been exploitative but also
coercive. Under NCAA Bylaw 14.1.3.1, student-athletes are required to sign a form
titled “Student-Athlete Statement” each academic year before their athletic season
begins. This form includes clauses that effectively force young athletes to give up
their publicity rights under duress, with the threat of ineligibility for competition if
they refuse to sign.
57. The NCAA’s coercive practices are further exacerbated by the disparity
in bargaining power between the organization and the student-athletes. The
26
{02126348-1 }
“Student-Athlete Statement” form is typically presented by authority figures such as
coaches, athletic directors, or compliance officers, creating an environment where
student-athletes feel compelled to sign without fully understanding the long-term
implications of their agreement.
58. Furthermore, the NCAA.com website features a store where visitors
can purchase NCAA Championships gear, jerseys, t-shirts, and other "team-spirited"
items promoting specific schools and NCAA tournaments. These sales generate
significant revenue for the NCAA, a substantial portion of which is derived from the
use of student-athletes’ names, images, and likenesses without their consent or
compensation. For instance, jerseys bearing the names and numbers of University of
Michigan stars like Denard Robinson and Braylon Edwards are sold, yet the athletes
receive no compensation. This practice exemplifies the NCAA’s systematic
exploitation of student-athletes, capitalizing on their popularity and success to drive
merchandise sales while denying the athletes any financial benefit from the use of
their personal attributes.
59. The NCAA, its partners, and affiliates, including BTN, have
extensively utilized footage of iconic moments from University of Michigan football
games in their broadcasts. These broadcasts include highlights, promotional videos,
and other content that generate substantial advertising revenue. Highlights of
memorable plays, such as Denard Robinson’s electrifying runs, Michael Martin’s
27
{02126348-1 }
dominant defensive performances, Braylon Edwards’ spectacular catches and game-
winning touchdowns, and Shawn Crable’s game-changing defensive maneuvers, are
repeatedly aired. These broadcasts not only captivate audiences but also drive
significant advertising revenue and viewership. Despite the immense commercial
benefits derived from showcasing these athletes’ remarkable achievements, none of
the generated revenue is shared with the athletes themselves. This practice
underscores the persistent and systematic exploitation of their names, images, and
likenesses by the NCAA and its affiliates, depriving the athletes of the financial
rewards they rightfully deserve for their contributions to the sport.
60. The NCAA’s requirement compelling student-athletes to waive their
publicity rights as a condition of participation has long been a standard practice. This
requirement forces young athletes, often with dreams of professional sports careers,
to give up their rights under duress, a practice fundamentally unfair and contrary to
the principles of equity and justice. This practice was enforced rigorously even
during the careers of notable University of Michigan athletes, ensuring the NCAA
maintained exclusive control over their valuable publicity rights.
61. The NCAA’s exploitation extends far beyond live broadcasts, profiting
immensely from the sale of archival footage, highlight reels, and other media
featuring former student-athletes. Highlights of Denard Robinson’s game-winning
performances, Braylon Edwards’ spectacular catches, Michael Martin’s standout
28
{02126348-1 }
defensive plays, Shawn Crable’s game-changing defensive maneuvers, and
countless plays from other Class Members continue to generate revenue through
platforms like YouTube and NCAA.com. These platforms showcase iconic
Michigan victories, such as the thrilling 2011 win over Notre Dame and Braylon
Edwards’ unforgettable three-touchdown game against Michigan State in 2004,
which are essential for driving viewer engagement and advertising revenue.
Additionally, the contributions of other notable University of Michigan student-
athletes, including a last-second touchdown against Indiana in 1979, a Heisman-
winning punt return against Ohio State in 1991, and a record-setting 313-yard
rushing performance against Ohio State in 1995, are extensively monetized by the
NCAA. These historic moments, replayed countless times across various media
platforms, captivate audiences and generate significant revenue through
advertisements, licensing deals, and merchandise sales.
62. Additionally, countless unnamed University of Michigan football
players have significantly contributed to these memorable plays and games. Their
efforts in blocking, tackling, and executing critical plays have been integral to the
success of their more celebrated teammates and the team's overall performance.
These student-athletes, though not always in the spotlight, have played crucial roles
in creating the iconic moments that the NCAA continues to exploit for commercial
gain. Despite their central role in creating these iconic moments, these athletes have
29
{02126348-1 }
received no compensation for the ongoing commercial use of their names, images,
and likenesses. This ongoing exploitation underscores the NCAA’s systematic
practice of profiting from the hard work and talent of student-athletes while denying
them their rightful share of the revenues generated. The rich history and storied
rivalries of University of Michigan football, brought to life through the remarkable
performances of its players, continue to be leveraged for financial gain without
providing any financial benefits to the athletes themselves, highlighting a clear and
ongoing injustice.
63. The NCAA maintains multiple YouTube channels and a comprehensive
online platform where historic games and highlights can be viewed, often
accompanied by advertisements. These platforms generate substantial revenue
through advertising, capitalizing on the enduring popularity of college football
without providing any share of the profits to the athletes involved. For example, clips
from Classic University of Michigan games, such as the 1997 National
Championship season, are monetized through these channels. Historic rivalries,
including the epic University of Michigan vs. Ohio State battles, are frequently
showcased, particularly memorable games like the 2006 "Game of the Century,"
which pitted #1 Ohio State against #2 Michigan in a clash for the ages.
64. Other iconic moments include the 2004 triple-overtime thriller against
Michigan State, the dramatic 2011 under-the-lights victory over Notre Dame, and
30
{02126348-1 }
the unforgettable 1985 showdown against Nebraska. These games, along with the
legendary 1991 matchup against Ohio State, are regularly replayed to attract
viewers. Additionally, memorable events such as the last-second touchdown against
Indiana in 1979, the record-setting rushing game against Ohio State in 1995, and the
dramatic victory in the 2000 Orange Bowl against Alabama are prominently
featured.
65. Historic Bowl games, such as the 1989 Rose Bowl win against USC
and the 1998 Rose Bowl victory over Washington State, further add to the rich
tapestry of University of Michigan football lore. The intense 1997 battle against
Penn State, dubbed "Judgment Day," and the 1999 win against Wisconsin are also
highlighted. These historic highlights captivate audiences and drive significant
advertising revenue, underscoring the NCAA’s exploitation of these cherished
moments without compensating the athletes who made them possible.
66. The NCAA leverages its monopsony power in the market for student-
athletes’ labor to enforce exclusive control over their names, images, and likenesses.
By conditioning eligibility on the surrender of publicity rights and prohibiting any
form of compensation during their college careers, the NCAA ensures it remains the
sole entity profiting from these rights. This practice is particularly evident in the
Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), where the University of Michigan’s high-profile
football program generates significant viewership and revenue.
31
{02126348-1 }
67. Even after student-athletes have graduated, the NCAA, BTN, its
partners, and affiliates continue to exploit their names, images, and likenesses. This
ongoing use includes replays of historical moments, promotional content, and
merchandise sales, all of which generate significant revenue for the NCAA, its
partners, and affiliates without compensating the athletes. The ongoing promotion
of Michigan’s storied football history, featuring the Plaintiffs and other Class
Members, illustrates this persistent exploitation.
68. In addition to direct revenue from broadcasts and merchandise, the
NCAA also profits by selling viewer information to third parties for advertising
purposes. This monetization further illustrates the extensive commercial use of
student-athletes’ identities without their consent or compensation. Fans who follow
University of Michigan athletics and interact with NCAA platforms contribute to
this data pool, enhancing the NCAA’s revenue streams at the expense of the student-
athletes.
69. The economic impact of these practices is substantial. The NCAA and
its co-conspirators generate billions of dollars annually from the use of student-
athletes’ names, images, and likenesses. This revenue is a direct result of the
uncompensated use of these athletes’ identities, long after their college careers have
ended. The University of Michigan, as a prominent FBS program, significantly
contributes to this revenue through its large fan base and successful athletic
32
{02126348-1 }
programs.
70. The NCAA’s practices constitute unjust enrichment and are a clear
violation of antitrust laws. By artificially depressing the compensation for student-
athletes’ labor and monopolizing the market for their publicity rights, the NCAA has
stifled competition and denied athletes their rightful earnings. This exploitation is
evident in the careers of University of Michigan athletes, who have generated
immense value for the NCAA and its partners without receiving fair compensation.
71. This confirms that the NCAA’s actions demonstrate a clear pattern of
collusion to deny student-athletes the benefits of their publicity rights. By leveraging
its monopoly power, the organization has created an environment where student-
athletes are forced to comply with its exploitative practices or risk losing their
athletic careers and educational opportunities. This systematic exploitation is
contrary to the principles of equity and justice and requires immediate judicial
intervention to protect the rights of student-athletes.
72. The NCAA’s exploitation extends beyond the athletes’ collegiate
careers, with the organization continuing to use their names, images, and likenesses
for commercial purposes long after they have graduated. This perpetual license of
NIL rights is an egregious violation of the athletes’ rights and a clear indication of
the NCAA’s intent to profit indefinitely from their identities without providing any
compensation.
33
{02126348-1 }
73. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of a Class of similarly situated former NCAA
student-athletes, seek not only to recover the compensation they are rightfully owed
but also to establish legal precedents that will protect future generations of student-
athletes from similar exploitation. This action aims to dismantle the entrenched
practices of the NCAA and to ensure that the organization is held accountable for its
systemic abuses.
74. This Court must consider the profound impact of the NCAA’s practices
on the lives and careers of countless student-athletes. By depriving them of the
ability to benefit from their own names, images, and likenesses, the NCAA has not
only violated their legal rights but has also hindered their ability to secure financial
stability and recognition for their contributions to collegiate sports.
75. The relief sought in this action includes compensatory and punitive
damages for the Plaintiffs, as well as injunctive relief to prevent the NCAA from
continuing its exploitative practices. The Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that the
NCAA’s practices are unlawful and that the organization must revise its Bylaws and
policies to ensure that student-athletes are fairly compensated for the commercial
use of their names, images, and likenesses.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
76. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set
forth herein.
34
{02126348-1 }
77. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of former NCAA student-athletes
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, individually and on behalf of
the following Class, defined as:
All persons who were NCAA student-athletes prior to June 15, 2016,
whose image or likeness has been used in any video posted by or
licensed by the NCAA, Big Ten Network, or their agents, distributors,
contractors, licensees, subsidiaries, affiliates, partners, or anyone acting
in concert with any of the foregoing entities or persons.
78. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that any assignment of publicity rights is
unlawful and unenforceable, a declaration of entitlement to a present and future
share of any revenue generated from the use of their publicity rights, including but
not limited to the use of their name, image, and likeness, and injunctive relief barring
Defendants from using the same absent reasonable remuneration.
79. On behalf of the members of the Class, Plaintiffs seek compensation
for any revenue generated from the use of their past publicity rights, including but
not limited to the use of their name, image, and likeness during their period of
eligibility and after, including without limitation, through licensing, marketing,
promotion, online, or other income streams that Class Members would have received
absent Defendants’ unlawful conduct.
80. Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide Class for their antitrust
claims (First, Second, and Third Counts, infra) and a nationwide Class for their
unjust enrichment claims (Fourth Counts, infra).
35
{02126348-1 }
81. Excluded from the Class are any officers, directors, and employees of
the Defendants.
82. Also excluded from the Class are: (a) any Judge or Magistrate presiding
over this action and members of their families; (b) Defendants and any entity in
which Defendants have a controlling interest or has a controlling interest in
Defendants and its legal representatives, successors and assigns; and (c) all persons
and entities who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the
Class.
83. Numerosity: Plaintiffs are unable to provide a specific number of
members in the Class because that information is solely in the possession of
Defendants. However, the exact number of Class Members, including the names and
addresses of all Class Members, will be easily ascertained through a review of
Defendants’ business records. Upon information and belief, each Class contains
thousands of members and is therefore so numerous that joinder of all members
would be impracticable.
84. Commonality: Common questions of law and fact predominate over
any individual issues that may be presented because Defendants tacitly admit they
have engaged in the conduct set forth above (NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. at 86 (2021)).
Thus, the common questions of law and fact are:
a. Whether Defendants engaged in a contract, combination, and

conspiracy, consisting of horizontal and vertical agreements
36
{02126348-1 }
that artificially depress prices in the market for student-

athletes’ labor, fixing those prices near zero;
b. Whether such contract, combination, and conspiracy,

consisting of horizontal and vertical agreements, is
enforceable;
c. Whether Defendants illegally agreed to exploit student-

athletes by using their monopoly power to force student-
athletes to give up their legal right of publicity and control of
their name, image, and likeness; asserting a perpetual license
of student-athletes’ NIL rights; and appropriating those rights
for decades, long after the athletes have completed their
collegiate careers;
d. Whether such conduct caused the Class to receive less, or near

zero compensation, than they would have for the use of their
publicity rights, including name, image, and likeness in a
competitive market;
e. Whether Defendants violated Section I of the Sherman Act;
f. Whether the Defendants and their co-conspirators’ conduct

caused injury to Plaintiffs and the Class;
g. Whether the Plaintiffs and Class are entitled to declaratory

and injunctive relief;
h. Whether and to what extent Plaintiffs and the Class are

entitled to damages;
i. Whether Defendants have been unjustly enriched.
85. The commonality requirement is satisfied when there are questions of
law or fact common to the Class. In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338
(2011), the Supreme Court noted that commonality requires the plaintiff to
37
{02126348-1 }
demonstrate that the Class members have suffered the same injury. Here, all Class
Members suffered the same injury of having their publicity rights unlawfully
exploited by the Defendants without compensation.
86. Typicality: The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the
Class, and all are based on the same facts and legal theories, as all such claims arise
out of Defendants’ unlawful conduct. The typicality requirement ensures that the
claims of the Class Representatives are typical of those of the Class. In General
Telephone Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982), the Supreme Court
held that typicality is satisfied when the Class representatives’ claims arise from the
same event, practice, or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of the other
Class Members.
87. Adequacy: Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class and will
protect the claims and interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel
experienced in the prosecution of complex Class actions. Neither Plaintiffs nor
counsel have interests that conflict with those of the Class and will vigorously
prosecute the claims alleged herein. Plaintiffs are aware of their responsibilities and
have accepted such responsibilities. Adequacy is met when the Class
Representatives have common interests with the unnamed members of the Class and
will vigorously prosecute the interests of the Class through qualified counsel.
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997).
38
{02126348-1 }
88. Predominance and Superiority: The Class is appropriate for
certification because questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class
predominate over questions affecting only individual members. A class action is
superior to other methods for the fair and efficient resolution of this controversy.
The Class action device presents fewer management difficulties and provides the
benefit of a single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision
by a single court. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs and each member of the Class
are relatively small as compared to the expense and burden of individual prosecution
of the claims asserted in this litigation. Thus, absent Class certification, it would not
be feasible for Plaintiffs and members of the Class to redress the wrongs done to
them. It also would be grossly inefficient for the judicial system to preside over large
numbers of individual cases. Further, individual litigation presents the potential for
inconsistent or contradictory judgments and would greatly magnify the delay and
expense to all parties and to the judicial system. Therefore, the Class action device
presents far fewer case management difficulties and will provide the benefits of
unitary adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single
court.
89. Predominance and superiority are met when the proposed Class
Members’ claims are based on a common nucleus of operative facts and when a
Class action is a superior method for adjudicating the controversy. In Amchem
39
{02126348-1 }
Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997), the Supreme Court emphasized that
predominance tests whether proposed Classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant
adjudication by representation. Here, the Defendants’ conduct affected all Class
Members in the same manner, making Class action adjudication appropriate.
90. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable
to the members of the Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Class, thereby making final
injunctive relief appropriate for the members of the Declaratory and Injunctive
Relief Class as a whole.
91. Class certification is warranted where the party opposing the Class has
acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Class, making
injunctive or declaratory relief appropriate, respecting the Class as a whole. The
Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), clarified
that Rule 23(b)(2) applies when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would
provide relief to each member of the Class. The Defendants’ systemic exploitation
of student-athletes’ publicity rights without compensation is precisely the type of
conduct that justifies Class-wide injunctive relief.
92. The NCAA and its co-conspirators, members, and partners engaged in
a contract, combination, and conspiracy, consisting of horizontal and vertical
agreements, understanding, and concert of action, that artificially depress prices in
the market for student-athletes’ labor, fixing those prices near zero. This systematic
40
{02126348-1 }
collusion has deprived student-athletes of fair market compensation for their labor
and contributions.
93. The NCAA and its members enjoy a monopsony (i.e., a buyer-side
monopoly) in the market for student-athletes’ labor because no reasonable substitute
exists for the elite athletic and academic opportunities offered by Division I schools.
This monopsony power allows the NCAA to dictate terms and conditions to student-
athletes without competition.
94. The NCAA leverages its monopsony power in the market for student-
athletes’ labor to give itself a monopoly in the market for student-athletes’ names,
images, and likenesses. By controlling both the labor and the publicity rights
markets, the NCAA can exploit student-athletes without providing them fair
compensation.
95. By conditioning student-athletes’ eligibility to play on their surrender
of their publicity rights for the duration of their college careers; prohibiting student-
athletes from receiving any compensation for their name, image, and likeness rights
during their college careers; and continuing to appropriate those rights long after
students have graduated and ostensibly moved beyond the reach of the NCAA, the
NCAA has made itself the sole source for collegiate athlete names, images, and
likenesses—even for athletes who graduated decades ago.
96. Thus, the NCAA has acquired both monopsony power, pushing the
41
{02126348-1 }
price of student-athlete names, images, and likenesses to zero when it acquires them,
and monopoly power, making itself the only seller in the market for those names,
images, and likenesses. This dual market control severely limits the economic
opportunities available to student-athletes.
97. These actions, which are ongoing and continue to this day, constitute
an unreasonable restraint of trade that eliminated competition in the market for
former student-athletes’ name, image, and likeness rights. This restraint of trade is a
clear violation of antitrust laws, as it stifles competition and innovation in the
market.
98. Furthermore, the NCAA’s conduct constitutes an unlawful exercise of
its monopoly power to stifle competition and unreasonably restrain trade. By
maintaining this control, the NCAA has hindered the ability of former student-
athletes to capitalize on their own identities, which is an antitrust injury.
99. Defendants are estopped from relying on any limitations or disclaimers
as a defense to Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ claims. Defendants knew or should
have known that the acts complained herein were a violation of antitrust laws and
offend the reasonable expectations of Plaintiffs and Class Members and have been
continuous and ongoing for decades. Thus, Defendants’ own conduct precludes them
from relying on the statute of limitations.
100. Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to equitable tolling of their
42
{02126348-1 }
claims from the date of the first unlawful act of Defendants and their co-conspirators,
including without limitation the requirement that Plaintiffs and Class Members sign
away publicity rights, barely at the age of maturity, an extraordinary circumstance
that prevented Plaintiffs from pursuing their rights, initially within the first act’s
limitations period, and the harm is ongoing and continuous to this day.
101. Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to invoke the continuing
violations doctrine because although, upon information and belief, Plaintiffs signed
away their respective publicity rights at the time they played sports for their
respective schools, Defendants’ actions, subsequent and continuing, are repeated
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, such that with each continuing violation,
the statute of limitations has been repeatedly restarted since the advent of Plaintiffs
and Class Members work as NCAA student-athletes.
102. The relevant markets are the nationwide markets for the labor of NCAA
college athletes in the sports in which they compete. In these labor markets, current
and prospective student-athletes compete for roster spots on the various athletic
teams. NCAA member institutions recruit and retain the best student-athletes by
offering bundles of goods and services including scholarships to cover the cost of
attendance, education-related benefits and awards, as well as access to the athletic
training facilities, coaching, medical treatment, and opportunities to compete at the
highest levels of college sports in front of large crowds and television audiences.
43
{02126348-1 }
103. All former NCAA student-athletes have been denied the opportunity to
pursue economic benefits in a competitive market, free of the NCAA’s restraints.
This antitrust injury to the Class is exacerbated by the reality that only a small
percentage of former college athletes had careers in professional athletics and those
that did often had very short careers. For many former student-athletes, college is
where the value of their athletic skill was at, or close to, its peak and was an optimal
time to realize that value. However, the NCAA’s anticompetitive restraints
prohibited them from doing so.
104. Accordingly, on behalf of a Class of all NCAA student-athletes,
Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment that the NCAA’s rules are unlawful as well
as an injunction permanently enjoining the NCAA from continuing its exploitative
practices.
COUNT I
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE
Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1
forth herein.
106. 15 U.S.C. § 1 provides, "Every contract, combination in the form of
trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the several
states, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make
any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be

44
{02126348-1 }
illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be
punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or if any other person,
$1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said
punishments, in the discretion of the court."
107. The NCAA and the Big Ten Network, by and through Defendants’ co-
conspirators, officers, directors, employees, agents, or other representatives, have
entered into a continuing horizontal and vertical contract, combination, and
conspiracy in restraint of trade to artificially depress to near zero the price for the
use of, and to limit supply for, licensing and sale of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’
publicity rights, including names, images, and/or likenesses, in the relevant market,
nationwide, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
108. The Supreme Court has long recognized that Section 1 of the Sherman
Act targets concerted anticompetitive behavior that unreasonably restrains trade. In
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911), the court
clarified that only unreasonable restraints of trade are prohibited. Further elaboration
on what constitutes an unreasonable restraint was provided in National Collegiate
Athletic Assn. v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984), where
the court held that the NCAA’s control over television contracts and broadcast rights
constituted a restraint of trade.
109. The NCAA rules and practices—including the requirements that
45
{02126348-1 }
student-athletes sign away their names, images, likenesses, and publicity rights
(collectively "publicity rights") to the NCAA—and the agreement among the NCAA
and its named and unnamed co-conspirators, including its member institutions, to
adhere to these rules constitute a contract or combination between the NCAA, its
member institutions, and its partners and co-conspirators in restraint of trade in the
market for student-athlete services.
110. The Sherman Act condemns not only the agreements that are express
but also those that are implied or tacit. The NCAA’s agreement with its member
institutions and partners to impose uniform rules on the waiver of publicity rights is
a textbook example of a combination that restrains trade. This combination is
horizontal (among the member institutions) and vertical (between the NCAA and its
partners), both of which are, per se, unlawful under antitrust law.
111. This combination and conspiracy by Defendants (which possess a
dominant position in the relevant market) has resulted in and will, until restrained,
continue to result in anti-competitive effects, including inter alia: (a) fixing the
compensation of Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class at artificially low levels since
Plaintiffs and Class Members have been unable to negotiate for compensation in a
free market; and (b) eliminating or suppressing, to a substantial degree, competition
among Defendants for skilled labor in the market.
112. The NCAA and BTN have imposed a regime of restrictive agreements
46
{02126348-1 }
that artificially fixed the value of Plaintiffs' NIL at zero, resulting in profound
economic harm. In a free market, Plaintiffs would have had the ability to negotiate
and profit from their NIL through endorsements, licensing, and commercial
ventures. The NCAA’s anticompetitive practices, however, ensured that Plaintiffs
were unable to access these economic opportunities. The value of their NIL was
siphoned off by the NCAA and BTN to generate billions in revenue from broadcasts,
promotions, and merchandise. The NCAA’s monopolistic control over student-
athlete NIL rights has caused a significant antitrust injury by suppressing
competition and denying Plaintiffs any market-based compensation for their
contributions, thus violating the core principles of antitrust law.
113. The antitrust injury in this case is evident. The Supreme Court in
American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, 560 U.S. 183 (2010), stated,
"Decisions by NFL teams to license their separately owned trademarks collectively
and to only one vendor are decisions that ‘depriv[e] the marketplace of independent
centers of decision making,’ and therefore of actual or potential competition.” This
reaffirmed that antitrust injury is a foregone conclusion when market participants
collude to deny market benefits to a particular group. Here, the market participants
(NCAA, its member institutions, and broadcasting partners) have colluded to deny
fair market compensation for the publicity rights of student-athletes, causing a direct
antitrust injury.
47
{02126348-1 }
114. Recent legal precedents further solidify Plaintiffs’ claims against the
NCAA and BTN. In NCAA v. Alston, the Supreme Court highlighted the NCAA’s
unlawful use of monopsony power to artificially suppress compensation for student-
athletes, finding that the organization’s restrictions harmed competition. The
decision reaffirmed that the NCAA cannot justify its blanket restrictions under the
guise of preserving “amateurism.” Similarly, in O'Bannon v. NCAA, the courts ruled
that the NCAA’s prohibition on athlete compensation for the use of their NIL
violated antitrust laws. These cases, alongside others, establish that the NCAA’s
policies constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade, depriving Plaintiffs and Class
Members of their rights to fair compensation for the commercialization of their NIL.
115. The NCAA and its partners, co-conspirators, and member institutions
deploy their market power, via NCAA rules, to reduce the cost of student-athletes’
publicity rights to zero.
116. The NCAA’s illegal conduct has deprived Plaintiffs of substantial
profits they would otherwise have earned from their publicity rights.
117. The NCAA’s illegal conduct has damaged Plaintiffs by diminishing
their opportunity to maximize their compensation for their publicity rights, including
their rights related to images related to the most profitable portion of NCAA’s
revenue, football.
118. The full amount of this damage is currently unknown, and it continues
48
{02126348-1 }
to increase as the NCAA and its affiliates and co-conspirators continue to profit from
the NCAA’s ongoing, uninterrupted usurpation of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’
publicity rights.
119. The NCAA has damaged and continues to damage Plaintiffs to this day
by earning revenue from advertisers who pay for placements on NCAA.com and/or
the NCAA’s YouTube channels, which are shown to viewers before they are allowed
to view videos of Plaintiffs and the Class.
120. The NCAA has used videos of Plaintiffs and the Class—without
Plaintiffs’ consent and without compensating Plaintiffs or other Class Members—in
commercial advertising since the time that they played in the NCAA, up to and
including this year.
121. The NCAA’s requirement that student-athletes assign their publicity
rights to the NCAA is not justified by any procompetitive objective. The NCAA’s
publicly stated goals in creating the rules are mere pretext; the rules serve only to
allow the NCAA to maximize its profit from student-athletes’ uncompensated labor
in the only labor market available to them.
122. The Supreme Court in Federal Trade Commission v. Indiana
Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986), highlighted that procompetitive
justifications must have a factual basis and cannot be merely hypothetical. The
NCAA’s justification for its restraint of trade under the guise of preserving
49
{02126348-1 }
“amateurism” fails this test, as it does not foster competition or enhance consumer
welfare but rather stifles economic opportunities for student-athletes.
123. Even if there were any shred of procompetitive benefit to the NCAA
unreasonably forcing student-athletes to assign their publicity rights to the NCAA,
and to the NCAA’s assumption that those rights have been surrendered in perpetuity,
numerous less restrictive alternatives could accomplish any procompetitive
objective the NCAA could articulate.
124. A genuine case or controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants
regarding the legality of the NCAA’s requirement that student-athletes assign their
publicity rights to the NCAA without compensation.
125. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ combinations and
contracts to restrain trade, suppress compensation, and eliminate competition for
skilled labor, Plaintiffs and Members of the Class have suffered injury to their
business or property and have been deprived of the benefits of free and fair
competition. Absent Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members would have
received a competitive share of the revenue being brought into the NCAA and their
co-conspirators from Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ labor. As a result, Plaintiffs and
the Class have suffered damages in an amount to be proved at trial.
126. The Supreme Court in United States v. Topco Associates, Inc., 405 U.S.
596 (1972), reaffirmed that agreements to allocate markets and fix prices are per se
50
{02126348-1 }
violations of the Sherman Act. The NCAA’s practices fall squarely within this
precedent, as they involve horizontal agreements among competitors (NCAA
member institutions) to fix the price of student-athletes’ publicity rights at zero.
127. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to a
declaratory judgment that any assignment of publicity rights under the circumstances
in which the NCAA presents its required waiver to students is unlawful and
unenforceable.
128. Plaintiffs and the Class are also entitled to a permanent injunction
enjoining the NCAA and any person acting through it from relying on any
unenforceable assignment of publicity rights.
129. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct,
Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured and financially damaged, including
without limitation, lost profits, less or near zero compensation, precisely the type of
injuries antitrust laws were designed to prevent, making Defendants’ conduct an
unlawful restraint of trade.
130. Pursuant to Section 4 of the Clayton Act, Plaintiffs are entitled to
recover treble the amount of actual damages as well as their reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs.
131. Plaintiffs and the Class are further entitled to a permanent injunction
terminating the ongoing violations alleged in this Complaint.
51
{02126348-1 }
COUNT II
UNREASONABLE RESTRAINT OF TRADE
GROUP BOYCOTT/REFUSAL TO DEAL
Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1
forth herein.
133. 15 U.S.C. § 1 provides, "Every contract, combination in the form of
trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the several
states, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."
134. Defendants’ group boycott/refusal to deal encompasses Defendants’
concerted acts to prevent Class Members from being compensated for the use of
their images, likenesses, and/or names and/or their concerted refusal to permit
compensation to be paid to Members of the Class for the use of their images,
likenesses, and/or names, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
135. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that group boycotts are
per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale
Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207 (1959), the court held that group boycotts and concerted
refusals to deal are per se unlawful because they tend to restrict competition and
control prices. The NCAA’s practices fall squarely within this precedent, as they
involve agreements among competitors (member institutions and broadcasting
partners) to prevent student-athletes from receiving fair market compensation for
52
{02126348-1 }
their publicity rights.
136. Defendants’ group boycott/refusal to deal also includes Defendants’
ongoing concerted action to deny Class Members compensation in the form of
royalties for the continued use of their images, likenesses, and/or names for profit.
137. The NCAA possesses monopsony and monopoly power in the market
for student-athlete labor and services. The NCAA’s control over the market for
student-athlete labor is nearly absolute, as it regulates the terms and conditions under
which student-athletes can participate in intercollegiate sports. This control extends
to the use of student-athletes’ publicity rights, which the NCAA and its member
institutions have monopolized through their restrictive agreements and practices.
138. Through its rules and practices, the NCAA wields its monopsony power
willfully to quash competition and drive the cost of student-athletes’ labor down to
zero. The NCAA’s rules require student-athletes to relinquish their publicity rights
as a condition of participation, effectively eliminating any competition for those
rights and ensuring that student-athletes cannot negotiate for fair compensation.
139. The NCAA uses its monopsony power to further exploit student-
athletes by forcing them to assign their publicity rights to the NCAA, and then
assuming that that assignment is perpetual. This perpetual assignment of rights
prevents student-athletes from ever reclaiming control over their own identities and
from receiving compensation for the commercial use of their names, images, and
53
{02126348-1 }
likenesses.
140. The NCAA has always conditioned eligibility to play on the
relinquishment, to the NCAA and its members by the athlete, of all rights to be
compensated for his or her image, likeness, and/or name associated with the playing
of those sports. This practice not only restrains trade but also constitutes a group
boycott and refusal to deal, as it prevents any entity from compensating student-
athletes for their publicity rights without violating NCAA rules.
141. This practice perpetuates the NCAA’s monopoly power in the market
for student-athlete labor and in other markets by consolidating relevant assets—the
publicity rights of well-known athletes—under its control at zero cost. The Supreme
Court in FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986), stated that
such control over market assets, coupled with restrictive agreements that limit
market competition, constitutes an unlawful restraint of trade.
142. Thus, the NCAA’s monopoly power is not the result of growth or
development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historical
accident but instead of a deliberate course of conduct aimed at eliminating
competition. This conduct includes leveraging its monopoly power to enforce
agreements among its member institutions and broadcasting partners to exclude
student-athletes from the marketplace for their own publicity rights. Co-Defendant
Big Ten Network is an intended beneficiary of this.
54
{02126348-1 }
143. The NCAA’s group boycott/refusal to deal has the direct purpose and
effect of excluding student-athletes from the marketplace for their own names,
images, and likenesses. This exclusion is a per se violation of the Sherman Act as
defined in Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery & Printing Co.,
472 U.S. 284 (1985), which established that group boycotts that deny market access
are illegal per se.
144. There is no valid procompetitive reason for the NCAA to require
student-athletes to assign their publicity rights to the NCAA in perpetuity. The
Supreme Court in Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 441
U.S. 1 (1979), indicated that any claimed procompetitive justification must
demonstrate actual benefits to consumers or competition. The NCAA’s justification
of maintaining “amateurism” does not meet this standard, as it does not enhance
consumer welfare or promote competition, but rather suppresses it.
145. Rather, the purpose of this requirement is to allow the NCAA to extract
maximum profit from the uncompensated labor of student-athletes, taking full
advantage of its monopoly power to derive further profits for itself. This profit
extraction is achieved by ensuring that student-athletes cannot monetize their own
publicity rights, thus directing all revenue from such commercialization to the
NCAA and its partners.
146. The NCAA has leveraged its monopoly power by unlawfully requiring
55
{02126348-1 }
that all member institutions enforce the requirement that student-athletes assign their
publicity rights to the NCAA in perpetuity. This enforcement mechanism ensures
that no member institution can deviate from the restrictive agreements, thereby
maintaining the NCAA’s control over the market for student-athlete publicity rights.
147. This requirement has allowed the NCAA to leverage its labor-side
monopsony to create additional profits and power—and also monopoly power—in
the separate market for media licensing of game footage, images, and accounts. The
Supreme Court in Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585
(1985), condemned such leveraging of monopoly power to exclude competition in
adjacent markets.
148. Defendants have leveraged their power in a concerted action to deny
Class Members compensation in the form of royalties for the continued use of their
images, likenesses, and/or names for profit. This concerted action includes
agreements among the NCAA, its member institutions, and broadcasting partners to
exclude student-athletes from any share of the revenue generated from the
commercial use of their publicity rights.
149. Defendants’ power is an unlawful restraint on trade and a violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act as a group boycott and/or refusal to deal. The Supreme
Court in Fashion Originators’ Guild of America v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457 (1941), held
that concerted refusals to deal that eliminate competition and control prices
56
{02126348-1 }
constitute per se violations of antitrust laws. The NCAA’s practices are analogous,
as they control the price of student-athletes’ publicity rights by fixing it at zero.
150. The NCAA’s eligibility rules and Bylaws act as a threat of a group
boycott to force all Class Members, including Plaintiffs, to abide by the NCAA’s
rules. Plaintiffs and Class Members received less compensation, near zero, and
substantially fewer benefits than they otherwise would have received for the use of
their athletic services in competitive labor markets and thus suffered antitrust
injuries.
151. The NCAA has always conditioned eligibility on the relinquishment, to
the NCAA and its members by the student-athlete, of all rights to be compensated
for their athletic services (except in limited circumstances) arbitrarily dictated by the
NCAA and enforced by the NCAA. This conditioning of eligibility on the waiver of
publicity rights constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade and a group boycott, as
it prevents student-athletes from participating in intercollegiate sports unless they
agree to the NCAA’s terms.
152. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ combinations and
contracts to restrain trade, suppress compensation, and eliminate competition for
skilled labor, Plaintiffs and Members of the Class have suffered injury to their
business or property and have been deprived of the benefits of free and fair
competition. Absent Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members would have
57
{02126348-1 }
received a competitive share of the revenue being brought into the NCAA and their
co-conspirators from Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ labor. As a result, Plaintiffs and
the Class have suffered damages in an amount to be proved at trial.
153. The Supreme Court in Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services,
Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992), established that actions to maintain monopoly power
through restrictive agreements and exclusionary practices are per se violations of the
Sherman Act. The NCAA’s agreements and practices to exclude student-athletes
from receiving compensation for their publicity rights fit within this framework.
154. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to a
declaratory judgment that any assignment of publicity rights, under the
circumstances in which the NCAA presents its required waiver to student-athletes,
is unlawful and unenforceable.
155. Plaintiffs and the Class are also entitled to a permanent injunction
enjoining the NCAA and any person acting through it from relying on any
unenforceable assignment of publicity rights.
156. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct,
Plaintiffs and the Class have been injured and financially damaged, including
without limitation, lost profits, less or near zero compensation, precisely the type of
injuries antitrust laws were designed to prevent, making Defendants’ conduct an
unlawful restraint of trade.
58
{02126348-1 }
157. Pursuant to Section 4 of the Clayton Act, Plaintiffs are entitled to
recover treble the amount of actual damages, as well as their reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs.
158. Plaintiffs and the Class are further entitled to a permanent injunction
terminating the ongoing violations alleged in this Complaint.
COUNT III
CONSPIRACY TO RESTRAIN TRADE
Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1
forth herein.
160. Defendants NCAA, BTN, and their known and unknown co-
conspirators have engaged in a continuing contract, combination, and conspiracy to
restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Through their officers,
directors, employees, agents, or other representatives, the Defendants have entered
a concerted action to artificially depress to near zero the price for the use of and to
limit the supply for, licensing, and sale of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ publicity
rights, including names, images, and likenesses. The purpose of this conspiracy was,
and is, to maximize the profits of the NCAA and its co-conspirators by unlawfully
restraining trade and suppressing competition in the market for the licensing and sale
of student-athletes’ publicity rights. This conspiracy has been in operation for many
years and continues to this day, affecting countless former and current student-
59
{02126348-1 }
athletes.
161. The conspiracy involves several mechanisms, including but not limited
to requiring student-athletes to sign forms that transfer their publicity rights to the
NCAA as a non-negotiable condition of participation, imposing rules and
regulations that prohibit student-athletes from receiving any compensation for the
use of their names, images, and likenesses during their college careers, enforcing
these rules through a combination of threats, coercion, and the promise of eligibility
to compete in collegiate athletics, and continuing to exploit the publicity rights of
former student-athletes long after their college careers have ended without providing
any compensation.
162. This combination and conspiracy by Defendants have resulted in and
will continue to result in anti-competitive effects, including fixing the compensation
of Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class at artificially low levels, as Plaintiffs and Class
Members have been unable to negotiate for compensation in a free market;
eliminating or suppressing to a substantial degree competition among Defendants
for skilled labor in the market, and depriving Plaintiffs and Class Members of the
economic benefits that would result from a competitive market for their publicity
rights. The NCAA’s requirement that student-athletes assign their publicity rights to
the NCAA is not justified by any procompetitive objective. The publicized goals of
preserving “amateurism” are merely pretextual and serve only to maximize the
60
{02126348-1 }
NCAA’s profits from the uncompensated labor of student-athletes. These practices
do not promote competition or consumer welfare but instead stifle economic
opportunities for student-athletes.
163. The combination, agreement, and conspiracy described herein
constitute an unlawful restraint of trade that has harmed Plaintiffs and Class
Members by depriving them of the benefits of free and fair competition. As a direct
and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and the Class have
been injured in their business or property, including lost profits and diminished
compensation opportunities. Defendants have perpetuated this conspiracy through
ongoing and continuous conduct, including utilizing their monopsony power in the
market for student-athletes’ labor to enforce the assignment of publicity rights,
continuing to exploit the names, images, and likenesses of former student-athletes
in various media platforms, advertisements, and merchandise without compensation,
and engaging in public relations campaigns that falsely portray their practices as
beneficial to student-athletes and essential for the preservation of amateurism.
164. The Supreme Court has long recognized that concerted anticompetitive
behavior that unreasonably restrains trade is prohibited under the Sherman Act. In
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, the court clarified that only
unreasonable restraints of trade are prohibited. Further, in American Needle Inc. v.
National Football League, the court stated that decisions by market participants to
61
{02126348-1 }
license their trademarks collectively and to only one vendor are decisions that
deprive the marketplace of independent centers of decision-making and, therefore,
of actual or potential competition. The conduct of the NCAA and its co-conspirators
fits squarely within these precedents.
165. Plaintiffs and the Class seek treble damages pursuant to Section 4 of
the Clayton Act, injunctive relief to prevent further anticompetitive conduct, and a
declaration that any assignment of publicity rights under the circumstances in which
the NCAA presents its required waiver to students is unlawful and unenforceable.
Specifically, Plaintiffs and the Class request a declaration that Defendants’ actions
constitute violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; an order enjoining Defendants
from continuing to enforce the assignment of publicity rights without fair
compensation; an award of treble damages to compensate Plaintiffs and the Class
for the economic harm suffered as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct;
restitution and disgorgement of all profits earned by Defendants through the use of
Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ names, images, and likenesses; and an award of
reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this action.
62
{02126348-1 }
COUNT IV
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
forth herein.
167. Defendants have been unjustly enriched by the use of Plaintiffs’ and
Class Members’ names, images, and likenesses without compensation. Unjust
enrichment occurs when one party retains a benefit which in equity and good
conscience belongs to another. The Defendants’ actions have allowed them to amass
substantial profits from the commercialization of the Plaintiffs’ identities, all while
depriving the Plaintiffs of their rightful earnings.
168. Plaintiffs and Class Members have conferred a benefit upon Defendants
by allowing them to use their names, images, and likenesses to generate revenue.
This revenue includes, but is not limited to, advertising dollars, merchandise sales,
video game licensing, and media rights deals. The extent of this benefit is vast,
considering the immense popularity and commercial success of college sports,
particularly NCAA football.
169. Defendants have knowingly and willingly accepted and retained this
benefit under circumstances that make it inequitable for them to retain the benefit
without paying for its value. The principle of unjust enrichment requires restitution
to the party who conferred the benefit when retention of the benefit without payment
would be unjust. Here, the Defendants’ retention of benefits derived from the
63
{02126348-1 }
Plaintiffs’ publicity rights without compensation clearly constitutes unjust
enrichment.
170. In Rogers v. Hough, 101 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1939), the court emphasized
that when one party benefits from the efforts and expenditures of another, equity
demands that the benefitted party pay for the value of what it has received. The
Defendants in this case have profited immensely from the Plaintiffs’ and Class
Member’s athletic performances and public personas without providing any form of
compensation, directly contravening this principle.
171. The Supreme Court in Midland Insurance Co. v. Central Hanover Bank
& Trust Co., 234 N.Y. 304 (1922), articulated that unjust enrichment does not
require wrongful conduct by the benefitting party but simply that the circumstances
are such that equity and good conscience demand restitution. The NCAA’s
systematic exploitation of student-athletes’ publicity rights, though institutionalized
through its rules and practices, constitutes such circumstances.
172. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unjust enrichment,
Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered injury and financial damage, including
lost profits and less or near zero compensation for the use of their names, images,
and likenesses. This deprivation of rightful earnings has had significant financial and
personal impacts on the Plaintiffs, who have been unable to capitalize on their own
identities while seeing their contributions generate substantial wealth for the
64
{02126348-1 }
Defendants.
173. Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to restitution and/or
disgorgement of all profits earned by Defendants through the use of their names,
images, and likenesses. Restitution is a remedy designed to prevent unjust
enrichment by restoring the injured party to the position they would have been in
had the enrichment not occurred. In this case, it requires the Defendants to return the
profits they have wrongfully retained.
174. The measure of restitution in this case should include all profits derived
from the commercial use of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ publicity rights,
reflecting the full extent of the benefit conferred. The Supreme Court in CFTC v.
Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986), confirmed that equitable remedies such as disgorgement
are appropriate to deprive wrongdoers of their ill-gotten gains and to restore the
status quo.
175. Plaintiffs and Class Members are further entitled to a permanent
injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing to use their names, images, and
likenesses without compensation. The ongoing exploitation of Plaintiffs’ identities
without remuneration constitutes a continuous wrong that equity demands be halted.
176. In Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204 (2002),
the Supreme Court affirmed that injunctive relief is appropriate where legal remedies
are inadequate to address ongoing harm. Here, a permanent injunction is necessary
65
{02126348-1 }
to prevent further unjust enrichment and to protect the Plaintiffs’ rights to control
and benefit from their own publicity rights.
DAMAGES INCURRED
forth herein.
178. Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered significant financial harm
due to the Defendants' unlawful and systematic commercialization of their NIL. This
damage includes both the past and ongoing unauthorized use of their identities. For
years, the NCAA, BTN, and their affiliates have leveraged Plaintiffs’ NIL for profit
through broadcasts, advertisements, merchandising, and other commercial
ventures—without any form of compensation to the athletes themselves. This unjust
enrichment extends into the future, as the Defendants continue to exploit Plaintiffs'
NIL through perpetual replays and promotional content. The relief sought in this
action aims to ensure that all past and future uses of Plaintiffs’ NIL are fairly
compensated, thus rectifying the continuing exploitation that has deprived Plaintiffs
of rightful economic benefits. The damages incurred include, but are not limited to,
the following:
a. Loss of Market Value for NIL Rights: The NCAA’s restrictions

prevented student-athletes from realizing the full market value of
their NIL rights during their playing years. Student-athletes were
unable to enter into profitable agreements to endorse products,
66
{02126348-1 }
appear in advertisements, or license their likeness for various

uses. This deprivation directly impacted their ability to generate
income from their personal brands, a common revenue stream for
athletes. By comparing market data and potential deals available
to similar athletes in unrestricted environments, the lost market
value of these NIL rights can be monetized, demonstrating the
financial harm caused by these restrictions. Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages for the lost market value of their NIL
rights.
b. Suppressed Earnings from Endorsements: Due to NCAA

rules, student-athletes could not secure lucrative endorsement
deals with brands, which are a common revenue stream for
athletes in unrestricted markets. These deals often include
sponsorships for sports apparel, beverages, and other products.
The inability to capitalize on such opportunities resulted in
significant financial losses. By assessing typical market rates for
similar endorsement agreements and projecting potential
earnings, the suppressed earnings from endorsements can be
quantified, highlighting the economic impact of these missed
opportunities. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for the
suppressed earnings from endorsements.
c. Missed Opportunities for Media Appearances: The NCAA’s

restrictions prevented student-athletes from earning income
through media appearances, such as television interviews,
commercials, and public speaking engagements, which are
significant revenue sources for high-profile athletes. This
resulted in lost opportunities for athletes to monetize their fame
and visibility. Estimating the lost earnings by comparing typical
fees for media appearances for similar athletes will highlight the
financial impact of these missed opportunities, emphasizing the
substantial revenue streams that were denied to the athletes.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for missed opportunities
for media appearances.
d. Uncompensated Use of Likeness in Merchandise: The NCAA,

its partners, and affiliates used student-athletes’ names and
likenesses in merchandise, such as jerseys, video games, and
other products, without providing any compensation to the
67
{02126348-1 }
athletes. This unauthorized use resulted in significant profits for

the NCAA while depriving athletes of their rightful share of the
earnings. Calculating a percentage of the profits generated from
merchandise sales that used the student-athletes’ likenesses will
provide a clear financial quantification of the unjust enrichment
experienced by the NCAA. This demonstrates the substantial
profits made from the student-athletes’ identities without their
consent or compensation. Plaintiffs seek disgorgement of profits
from the uncompensated use of their likenesses in merchandise.
e. Revenue from Archived Footage and Highlight Reels: The

NCAA continues to profit from archived footage and highlight
reels that feature former student-athletes, using them in various
media formats without compensating the athletes. The ongoing
commercial use of these performances generates substantial
advertising and licensing revenue. Determining the advertising
revenue generated from these media and claiming a share based
on the frequency and duration of usage of the athletes’ likenesses
will demonstrate the ongoing financial benefits to the NCAA
from past athletes’ performances, underscoring the continuous
exploitation of the athletes’ achievements. Plaintiffs seek a share
of the revenue generated from archived footage and highlight
reels.
f. Lost Licensing Opportunities: Because of NCAA policies,

student-athletes were unable to license their names and
likenesses for various products and services, a potential revenue
stream denied to them. This restriction prevented student-athletes
from entering into lucrative licensing agreements. By assessing
potential licensing fees and calculating total lost earnings based
on market rates for licensing deals, the financial impact of these
missed opportunities can be monetized, showing the significant
financial loss from prevented licensing opportunities. Plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages for lost licensing opportunities.
g. Economic Loss from NIL Suppression: The overall economic

loss from the suppression of NIL rights includes all missed
financial opportunities that student-athletes could have
capitalized on, such as endorsements, merchandise, and media
appearances. Aggregating the estimated earnings lost by all Class
68
{02126348-1 }
Members and using statistical models to project the total

economic loss will quantify the broad economic impact of NIL
suppression across the entire Class. This collective impact
illustrates the extensive financial damage caused to all affected
athletes. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for the aggregate
economic loss from NIL suppression.
h. Unfair Competitive Disadvantage: Student-athletes were at a

competitive disadvantage compared to those in jurisdictions
without NIL restrictions, affecting their marketability and overall
career prospects. This competitive disadvantage resulted in
reduced earnings potential and career opportunities. Calculating
the financial impact of this competitive disadvantage, including
reduced marketability and earnings potential, will illustrate how
NCAA policies placed student-athletes at a disadvantage,
impacting their professional development and financial future.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for the competitive
disadvantage imposed by NCAA policies.
i. Loss of Future Earnings Potential: The inability to build a

personal brand during college can significantly impact an
athlete’s future earnings potential and career opportunities.
Establishing a strong personal brand during their college years
could have led to substantial long-term financial benefits.
Projecting the long-term financial impact and potential future
earnings lost due to the inability to build a personal brand will
demonstrate the significant future earnings potential that was
denied to these athletes, highlighting the prolonged financial
impact on their careers. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages
for the loss of future earnings potential.
j. Unjust Enrichment: The NCAA’s profits from using student-

athletes’ NIL without compensation represent unjust enrichment
that should be rectified. The unauthorized use of athletes’ NILs
generated significant profits for the NCAA, which were unjustly
retained. Seeking disgorgement of profits and establishing a fund
for equitable distribution to the student-athletes who were
exploited will rectify the financial gain made by the NCAA at the
expense of the student-athletes, ensuring fair compensation for
the exploitation of their identities. Plaintiffs seek disgorgement
69
{02126348-1 }
of unjustly retained profits and equitable distribution to the

athletes.
k. Retroactive Compensation for Historical Use: The NCAA has

historically used student-athletes’ NILs without providing
compensation. Retroactive claims can address this past usage by
documenting instances where former student-athletes’ NILs were
used in video games, merchandise, and media without their
consent. The cumulative revenue generated from these uses will
be calculated, and a share of these profits will be claimed. This
ensures that athletes receive compensation for past exploitation
of their NILs. Plaintiffs seek retroactive compensation for
historical use of their NILs.
l. Group Licensing Agreements: Forming collective bargaining

units to enter into group licensing agreements can aggregate the
value of lesser-known student-athletes into a significant total
sum, ensuring equitable distribution of profits. Historical records
showing the success of group licensing agreements in other
contexts will support this claim, highlighting the potential
financial benefits from collective licensing. Plaintiffs seek
compensation based on group licensing agreements.
m. Long-Tail Endorsements: Capitalizing on smaller, localized

endorsement deals ensures even lesser-known student-athletes
are compensated for the missed opportunities within their reach.
Market data showing typical earnings from local endorsements
will be used to estimate potential earnings that could have been
generated, emphasizing the financial potential from these often-
overlooked opportunities. Plaintiffs seek compensation for lost
long-tail endorsements.
n. Social Media Influencer Marketing: Leveraging social media

platforms for revenue was another avenue denied by NCAA
restrictions. Social media metrics and potential earnings from
sponsored posts will be projected to claim lost revenue,
illustrating the modern revenue streams that athletes were
prevented from accessing. Plaintiffs seek compensation for lost
social media influencer marketing opportunities.
70
{02126348-1 }
o. Revenue Sharing from Media Rights: Sharing revenue

generated from broadcasting games and highlights is another
potential revenue stream. Financial records from media rights
deals will be examined to calculate the share of revenue
attributable to the use of former student-athletes’ performances,
ensuring that athletes receive a fair share of the profits generated
from their contributions. Plaintiffs seek a share of the revenue
from media rights.
p. Intellectual Property Claims: Treating the unauthorized use of

NIL as intellectual property violations provides a strong legal
foundation for claiming significant statutory damages. Instances
of NIL use without authorization will be documented, and
statutory damages for each infringement will be sought,
emphasizing the legal basis for compensating student-athletes for
unauthorized use of their identities. Plaintiffs seek statutory
damages for intellectual property violations.
q. Appearance Fees and Personal Appearances: Earnings from

personal appearances at events were another tangible revenue
stream denied due to NCAA policies. Records of missed
opportunities for personal appearances and market rates for such
events will be documented to calculate potential earnings,
highlighting the financial impact of denied personal appearance
opportunities. Plaintiffs seek compensation for lost appearance
fees and personal appearances.
r. Health and Wellness Programs: Promoting health and wellness

programs leverages student-athletes’ influence in health sectors
to claim compensation for missed opportunities. Market data
showing typical earnings from health and wellness endorsements
will be used to project potential earnings, illustrating the
financial potential from partnerships with fitness and health
brands. Plaintiffs seek compensation for missed opportunities in
health and wellness programs.
s. Educational and Training Programs: Running sports camps,

coaching clinics, and other educational programs represent long-
term career opportunities that were denied due to NCAA policies.
Historical data on earnings from such programs will be used to
71
{02126348-1 }
calculate potential long-term earnings, demonstrating the

extended financial impact of missed educational and training
opportunities. Plaintiffs seek compensation for lost opportunities
in educational and training programs.
t. Legal Costs and Fees: Costs incurred in pursuing legal action

against the NCAA, including attorney fees and court costs,
should be recovered to ensure that Plaintiffs are not financially
burdened by the pursuit of justice. Documenting all legal costs
incurred and including these in the claims for damages will
ensure full financial recovery for Michigan student-athletes,
preventing additional financial strain from seeking rightful
compensation. Plaintiffs seek recovery of all legal costs and fees
incurred in this action.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, through their attorneys, respectfully request that this Court:
1. Certify this action as a Class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. Appoint Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and their counsel as Class

Counsel;
3. Declare that Defendants’ actions as described herein constitute violations

of federal antitrust law and common law unjust enrichment;
4. Award Plaintiffs and the Class damages in an amount to be determined

at trial, including treble damages pursuant to Section 4 of the Clayton
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a);
5. Award Plaintiffs and the Class restitution and/or disgorgement of all

profits earned by Defendants through the use of their names, images, and
likenesses;
6. Award Plaintiffs and the Class an amount in excess of $50,000,000 plus

their reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this
72
{02126348-1 }
action;
7. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
pbMMINGS, McCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, PLC
JAMES R. ACHO (P62175)

17436 College Parkway, 3rd Floor
Livonia, MI 48152
734-26 1 -2400 1 248-26 1-4510 fax
Attorney for Plaintiffs
[email protected]
Dated: September
September 9,
9, 2024
2024
73
{02126343-1 1

Full Federal Lawsuit: 4 Michigan Players and NIL Money

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Federal Lawsuit: 4 Michigan Players and NIL Money

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Federal Lawsuit: 4 Michigan Players and NIL Money

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:24-cv-12355-TGB-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.

1 Filed 09/10/24 Page 1 of 73

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DENARD ROBINSON; BRAYLON Case No.:

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC

NOW COME Plaintiffs, DENARD ROBINSON (“Robinson”);

BRAYLON EDWARDS (“Edwards”); MICHAEL MARTIN (“Martin”);

SHAWN CRABLE (“Crable”) (sometimes collectively referred to as

“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, James R. Acho and CUMMINGS,

(“BTN”) state that:

This is a Class Action on behalf of all former University of Michigan Football

athletes for decades.

The University of Michigan Football program is arguably the most iconic in

college football history. It is undoubtedly the most recognized brand nationally.

compensate former Michigan players and rectify that unlawful wrong.

PARTIES, VENUE AND JURISDICTION

1. Denard Robinson is a former NCAA student-athlete who played

of playing with untied cleats. Robinson’s legacy as a Michigan quarterback is firmly

season in Michigan’s storied history, and the most rushing touchdowns by a

quarterback. His dual-threat capability and electrifying performances have left an

2. Braylon Edwards is a former NCAA student-athlete who played

Michigan, Edwards now resides in Beverly Hills, Michigan. Edwards, an

electrifying wide receiver captivated audiences with his remarkable athleticism,

clutch performances, Edwards delivered some of the most unforgettable moments in

across television broadcasts, online platforms, and promotional materials. These

out on several million dollars.

3. Michael Martin is a former NCAA student-athlete who played football

Township, Michigan, Martin currently resides in Canton, Michigan. Martin, a

relentless pursuit of quarterbacks, and ability to disrupt opposing offenses. His

leadership qualities made him a cornerstone of the Wolverines’ defense. Martin

performances and game-changing plays, including powerful tackles, have been

showcased in numerous highlight reels and promotional videos, generating

4. Shawn Crable is a former NCAA student-athlete who played football at

Crable currently resides in Canton, Ohio. Crable, a dominant linebacker, was

quarterbacks and game-changing tackles. Crable’s powerful presence and leadership

immortalized in numerous highlight reels, which continue to be replayed across

television broadcasts, online platforms, and promotional materials, generating

5. Numerous other former University of Michigan football players have

consent or compensation, resulting in significant financial and personal harm.

6. Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is an

unincorporated association headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. The NCAA

and regulates intercollegiate athletics. The NCAA generates substantial revenue

through the commercialization of student-athletes’ performances and identities, yet

it does so without providing fair compensation to the athletes themselves.

7. Defendant Big Ten Network (BTN) is a multi-platform sports network

dedicated to broadcasting and promoting collegiate athletics, specifically those of

and promotional content featuring student-athletes from the University of Michigan

student-athletes’ performances and identities by licensing their games for national

and international broadcasts, selling advertisements, and promoting subscriptions to

of compensation to the student-athletes whose names, images, and likenesses it

8. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331

questions of federal law, including the interpretation and application of antitrust

statutes designed to protect competition and prevent unfair trade practices.

diversity of citizenship between the Plaintiffs and Defendants further establishes

transacted business within the state of Michigan, including organizing intercollegiate

athletics contests, marketing, promoting, licensing or selling merchandise, and

engaging in substantial contacts within the state. The Defendants’ activities in

Michigan, including their direct commercial exploitation of University of Michigan

student-athletes, provide a sufficient nexus to establish personal jurisdiction.