House Settlement Approval Hearing Set for April 7: A Brief Primer

The settlement approval hearing in In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.) is set for April 7, 2025. Commonly known as the “House Settlement,” the pending resolution between plaintiffs and the NCAA, if approved by Judge Claudia Wilken, could have far-reaching implications for higher education NCAA-member institutions and student-athletes.

Background

The pending settlement arises from a consolidated set of three antitrust actions brought by current and former Division-1 athletes: House v. NCAA: Hubbard v. NCAA; and Carter v. NCAA.

Plaintiffs Grant House and Sedona Price filed a class-action complaint in June 2020, asserting that the NCAA and its conferences violated antitrust law by restricting Plaintiffs and Class Members’ rights to license and sell their rights to their names, images, and/or likenesses. Judge Wilken later consolidated House with Hubbard v. NCAA and Carter v. NCAA which both brought similar claims against the NCAA and its conferences.

On October 7, 2024, the court preliminary approved the House Settlement Agreement and directed plaintiffs to give notice of the settlement to the settlement classes. On March 3, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their motion for final settlement approval and omnibus response to objections. The motion argued that class members’ response to the “landmark settlement has been overwhelmingly positive.” Plaintiffs also highlighted that the $2.576 billion damages settlement, if approved, would be “one of the largest in antitrust history.”

The Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for April 7, 2025, at 10 a.m. P.T.

Key Provisions of the House Settlement

Athletes will be eligible to receive payment from NCAA-member schools. The proposed settlement requires the NCAA and its conferences to change all Division I and conference rules to permit payments to student-athletes. Each member-institution and student athlete will have the right to enter into an agreement for the student-athlete’s name, image, and likeness (“NIL”) rights.

Revenue Sharing will be established between NCAA-member schools and athletes. The House Settlement also sets forth a revenue sharing framework that will permit schools to distribute payments and benefits to student-athletes, in addition to existing scholarships and other benefits currently permitted by the NCAA. According to the settlement, schools will be able to spend 22% of specified revenue (which includes ticket sales, media rights deals, and sponsorships). This percentage will increase by 4% annually. Reports state that schools will be able to spend a maximum of $23.1 million at the onset, if the settlement is approved.

NCAA-member schools that are not part of the defendant conferences in the litigation have been given a June 15, 2025 deadline to declare whether they intend to make payments and provide benefits pursuant to the House settlement.

Former players will be compensated for deprivation of their name, image, and likeness rights. Former athletes, dating back to 2016, are eligible to receive a part of settlement’s pool of damages which exceeds $2.7 billion.^[1]

Settlement Objections

Several current and former Division I athletes have submitted objections and letters, urging the Court to deny approval of the House settlement. We highlight two objections that raise issues that may arise if the settlement is approved.

Several objectors raise concerns that the settlement runs afoul of Title IX. Objectors cited and discussed a Department of Education “Fact Sheet” that discussed Title IX in the context of NIL. The Biden Administration published the guidance on January 16, a few days before President Trump took office. The fact sheet stated that NIL agreements between schools and their student-athletes are a form of athletic financial assistance that must be proportionally available to male and female athletes pursuant to Title IX. The Trump Administration rescinded that guidance on February 12, stating that “Title IX says nothing about how revenue-generating athletics programs should allocate compensation among student athletes.” In their motion for final settlement approval, plaintiffs argue that “the applicability of Title IX is an issue of legal statutory interpretation that the Court need not resolve to grant final approval of the settlement.”

Some objectors also argue that the proposed settlement includes an unlawful “cap” on the amount of compensation and benefits that schools may provide student athletes. As one letter argues, the settlement’s cap on athlete compensation “is not different in theory or purpose than previous caps found to violate antitrust laws.” Dkt. No. 705. A Statement of Interest filed by the Department of Justice during the final days of the Biden Administration argued that the “cap” amounts to an agreement among competing employers that “restrains competition among schools for payments above the cap.” Plaintiffs argue that the cap “was the only way to implement a compromise settlement” and that other antitrust class action settlements involving professional sports leagues have been adopted and approved.

Whether these arguments and others made by objectors will have any impact on Judge Wilken’s decision to approve or not approve the settlement remains to be seen.

What’s Next?

Judge Wilken is set to hold a hearing on the House Settlement on April 7 at 10 a.m. PST. The public can watch the hearing here.

After the April 7 hearing, Judge Wilken will presumably take the arguments under advisement and eventually approve or not approve the settlement. Even if the settlement is approved, her decision could be appealed to the Ninth Circuit by objectors.

Earlier this month, the NCAA announced a Settlement Implementation Committee, made up of 10 athletics directors (two from each defendant conference) and the legal and compliance teams from the conferences and the NCAA. This committee, according to the NCAA, will be divided into four different working groups focused on different components of the settlement, including one group drafting new rules and clarifying existing rules to facilitate compliance with the settlement, another group is tasked with forming a new enforcement entity to enforce these rules.

It is important to follow these developments and consult with legal counsel to ensure compliance with the House Settlement and the forthcoming new rules from the NCAA, if the settlement is approved. Please contact one of the attorneys below or your regular Crowell contact to learn more.