## Facts

- Division I student-athletes brought a putative class action against the NCAA (and related conference defendants in the broader litigation) challenging eligibility and compensation rules governing athlete pay.
- Plaintiffs alleged NCAA rules and member conduct barred athletes from receiving compensation for the commercial use of their names, images, and likenesses (NIL), effectively fixing the price of NIL rights at zero.
- Plaintiffs alleged the rules operated as a concerted refusal to deal (group boycott) by preventing athletes from participating in NIL markets, including social-media monetization and group licensing associated with game broadcasts and related media.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants obtained substantial broadcast, sponsorship, and licensing revenues connected to athletes’ performances and publicity while prohibiting athletes from receiving NIL compensation.
- The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief and damages through proposed subclasses, including a social-media damages subclass and a group-licensing damages subclass seeking a share of game-telecast licensing fees.

## Issues

1. Whether prior NCAA antitrust decisions concerning athlete compensation required dismissal of plaintiffs’ NIL-based Sherman Act § 1 claims at the pleading stage under stare decisis principles.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a horizontal agreement, relevant markets, market power, anticompetitive effects, and antitrust injury sufficient to state Sherman Act § 1 claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
3. Whether the group-licensing damages theory failed as a matter of law because athletes lack enforceable publicity rights in live game telecasts.
4. Whether a state-law unjust enrichment claim could proceed alongside the federal antitrust claims based on alleged retention of revenues tied to athlete NIL.

## Decision

- The court denied the NCAA’s motion to dismiss in substantial part, allowing the core Sherman Act § 1 claims to proceed past the pleading stage.
- The court rejected the NCAA’s argument that prior NCAA compensation cases categorically foreclosed antitrust scrutiny of the challenged NIL restraints at Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court found the complaint plausibly alleged a horizontal agreement implemented through NCAA rules, the existence of relevant NIL-related markets, NCAA power derived from control of Division I eligibility, and anticompetitive effects from suppressing NIL compensation.
- The court limited broadcast-related aspects by declining to treat the case as asserting a new right-of-publicity claim in live telecasts and by signaling that damages theories could not rest on telecast publicity rights contrary to existing precedent.
- The court allowed the unjust enrichment claim to proceed at the pleading stage based on alleged retention of benefits under potentially unjust circumstances if the restraints were proven unlawful.

## Legal Principles

- Prior antitrust decisions involving related subject matter do not create categorical immunity for different restraints; at the pleading stage, earlier cases may inform analysis but do not necessarily require dismissal of distinct NIL restraints and markets.
- A Sherman Act § 1 claim is plausibly stated where plaintiffs allege a horizontal agreement among competitors, a relevant market, market power, and anticompetitive effects and injury; on a motion to dismiss, well-pleaded facts are taken as true.
- Courts may permit antitrust compensation-restraint theories to proceed even when plaintiffs’ damages narratives reference broadcast revenues, while disallowing any attempt to repackage the case as a direct right-of-publicity claim in live telecasts.
- Unjust enrichment may proceed in parallel with antitrust claims when plaintiffs plausibly allege defendants received and retained benefits linked to the challenged restraints and the retention could be unjust if the restraints are unlawful.

## Conclusion

The court largely refused to dismiss Division I athletes’ NIL-based Sherman Act § 1 and unjust enrichment claims, holding the complaint plausibly alleged concerted rules suppressing NIL compensation, while narrowing any theory that depended on recognizing athlete publicity rights in live game telecasts.


House v. NCAA, 545 F. Supp. 3d 804 (N.D. Cal. 2021)