Division I Men's Football and Basketball Players Filed a Class Action Against Sports Governing Bodies and Athletic Conferences for Conspiring to Restrict Their Ability to Monetize their Name, Image, and Likeness Rights

Class Action Lawsuit Charges the NCAA, Power Four Athletic Conferences, the College Sports Commission, and Their Leaders with Conspiring in Violation of Federal and California Antitrust Law

PHILADELPHIA, June 10, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Berger Montague and Freedman, Normand and Friedlund, two leading national plaintiff law firms, filed a class action lawsuit today, on behalf of men's football and basketball players attending Division I schools in those seventeen states that have passed laws prohibiting the NCAA, athletic conferences or other sports governing bodies from restricting the name, image and likeness ("NIL") rights of collegiate athletes in those states (the "NIL Rights States").

Two NCAA Division I collegiate football players Talanoa Ili and Charlie Mirer filed the class action suit, on behalf of men's football and basketball players. The Defendants are the NCAA, each of the "Power Four" athletic conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, and SEC), the College Sports Commission, and the leaders of each of these organizations.

"I'm one of many athletes who saw an amazing NIL opportunity disappear after the NCAA and Power Four conferences announced they would implement NIL rules limiting my ability to benefit from my own NIL rights," said USC freshman Talanoa Ili. "These powerful bodies and people conspired against me and other athletes like me even though California state law protects my NIL rights."

The suit alleges that Defendants agreed and jointly acted to implement two restrictions on the NIL compensation of Division I basketball and football athletes even though the laws of seventeen states ("NIL Rights States") prohibit the implementation of such restrictions. The NIL Rights States include those that are governed by both Democrats and Republicans. Plaintiffs claim that the challenged conduct violates federal and California antitrust laws, and other California state laws. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief to prevent recurrence of the challenged conduct and to construct a process that could bring order to, and a "win-win" outcome for all involved in, college sports.

The two NIL restrictions at issue in this case arise out of a settlement of the "House" antitrust litigation, which consolidated three different cases brought by multiple college athletes against the NCAA and the then-'Power Five' athletic conferences -- the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), the Big Ten, the Big 12, the Pac-12, and the Southeastern Conference (SEC) -- now referred to as the 'Power Four' following the Pac-12's dissolution." As part of that settlement, which was approved on June 6, 2026 by the federal district court for the Northern District of California, the parties agreed to certain restrictions on NIL rights, including: (1) an annual cap on how much Division I schools can pay their athletes, set at $20.5 million for the 2025-26 academic year; and (2) rules that effectively prohibit NIL payments by "Associated Entities or Individuals," such as "boosters" or "Collectives" to Division I athletes.

Crucially, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants—the NCAA, the Power Four conferences, the College Sports Commission, and their respective chief executives—understood that the laws of seventeen states prohibited the implementation of NIL compensation restrictions set out in the House settlement. They thus were aware that Congressional action would be necessary to implement the restrictions in those states. The suit charges that Defendants knew that Congress had not acted, and thus that implementing NIL restrictions would violate the laws of seventeen states. Plaintiffs further allege that the Court in House expressly declined to find that the settlement preempted state law. Accordingly, Defendants' coordinated decision to implement these restrictions in violation of these states' NIL laws was not authorized by the Court. The lawsuit thus challenges the implementation of the House settlement in these states, not the Settlement itself.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs are aware that Congress is considering legislation that would grant an antitrust exemption to the NCAA that would enable it to override lawful NIL compensation for collegiate athletes." "Should Congress act, it should not do so at the expense of college athletes' lawful NIL rights," said Robert Litan, one of the Plaintiffs' attorneys.

"I am deeply grateful to Stanford and the NIL Collective that supported athletes like me. As a non-scholarship football player that NIL income helped me afford living at Stanford. When the NCAA and conference NIL restrictions were implemented, that support evaporated," said Stanford junior Charlie Mirer. "Stanford is an extraordinary place, but it's not cheap. Athletes should not be blocked from lawful NIL opportunities that help make an education possible."

"There are many athletes like me whose parents aren't rich and who are being unlawfully denied NIL opportunities that could be life changing. The money we can earn now can mean real family stability and help cover the long-term costs of injuries that can come from playing my sport," said Mr. Mirer. "At a time when so many young people already feel that the deck is stacked against them, college athletes should not be blocked from any lawful opportunity to earn a living. By suing for myself and for others like, I hope this will help ensure that my teammates, other athletes in California, and future athletes are free to earn to earn lawful NIL income."

Plaintiffs filed suit in the federal district court for the Northern District of California, and specifically before Judge Claudie Wilken, who has retained jurisdiction over future damage suits arising out of implementation of the House Settlement.

The plaintiffs are represented by Berger Montague Chairman Eric L. Cramer and Shareholder Robert Litan and Ted Normand of Freedman, Normand, Friedland.

Read more about the case www.bergermontague.com/nilrights.

Berger Montague is one of the nation's preeminent law firms focusing on complex civil litigation, class actions, and mass torts in federal and state courts throughout the United States. With more than $2.4 billion in 2025 post-trial judgments alone, the Firm is a leader in the fields of complex litigation, antitrust, consumer protection, defective products, environmental law, employment law, securities, and whistleblower cases, among many other practice areas. For over 55 years, Berger Montague has played leading roles in precedent-setting cases and has recovered over $50 billion for its clients and the classes they have represented. Berger Montague is headquartered in Philadelphia and has offices in Chicago; Malvern, PA; Minneapolis; San Diego; San Francisco; Toronto, Canada; Washington, D.C., and Wilmington, DE.

Freedman, Normand, Friedland LLP, founded in 2019, is a national litigation boutique comprised of innovative and tech-savvy attorneys with stellar credentials. With experience from some of the most prestigious litigation firms in the country, FNF's legal team has a successful and decades-long track record of consistently achieving outstanding results in high-stakes and notable disputes on behalf of sophisticated clients. FNF attorneys have extensive experience litigating complex commercial, securities, antitrust, class action and derivative matters on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants in a broad range of industries. FNF is a full-service firm, handling everything from advice and counsel to mediations and arbitrations to full-scale litigation through trial. FNF attorneys are experienced and able to go to trial, and that demonstrated ability provides credible leverage toward achieving successful outcomes.

Media Contact:

Amy Wall-Monte
215.875.3021
[email protected] 

SOURCE Berger Montague