A class-action lawsuit against the NCAA that included two former Kansas basketball stars as plaintiffs was dismissed with prejudice on Monday, as the judge ruled that the lawsuit’s claims were not sufficiently timely and are already precluded by past cases.
Former KU guard Mario Chalmers served as the lead plaintiff for a class of 16 former college athletes who played before June 15, 2016 — the earliest date for inclusion in the ongoing House v. NCAA antitrust settlement — that also included Chalmers’ onetime teammate Sherron Collins.
The plaintiffs had contended in a lawsuit filed on July 1 that by using highlight footage of their past athletic accomplishments, the NCAA (and additional defendants, various college athletic conferences) was engaged in an ongoing series of antitrust violations, illegally reaping the rewards of the name, image and likeness rights that it had made its athletes sign away in order to play college sports. The claims against the NCAA included a conspiracy in restraint of trade, a group boycott, a violation of the Sherman Act and unjust enrichment.
After arguments took place on Jan. 27, District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York dismissed those claims on Monday. In particular, he rejected plaintiffs’ claims that each new use of these highlights constituted a “continuing violation” when in fact the former college athletes in question had initially granted the NCAA their NIL rights long ago, meaning any claims would fall outside the four-year statute of limitations.
“Under (case law), the NCAA’s use today of a NIL acquired decades ago as the fruit of an antitrust violation does not constitute a new overt act restarting the limitations clock,” Engelmayer wrote. “Instead, as the NCAA argues, the contemporary use of a NIL reflects performance of an aged agreement: a contract between the student-athlete and the NCAA under which it acquired footage and images of the plaintiff.”
Engelmayer also refuted multiple additional justifications from the plaintiffs that the statute of limitations could be extended to account for their claims, including one made on the basis of “speculative damages.” The plaintiffs contended that they were not aware of the value of their NIL rights at the time they granted them to the NCAA. Engelmayer suggested that they still could have filed suit sooner because they became aware of their value by the end of their college careers.
“Lead plaintiff Mario Chalmers, for example, knew that he had a successful three-year college career playing basketball for the Kansas Jayhawks, culminating in his sinking the gametying 3-pointer with 2.1 seconds to go in the 2008 national championship game, which the Jayhawks won in overtime,” Engelmayer wrote. “… By the time he graduated, Chalmers’ damages from the NCAA’s control of his NILs from his collegiate tenure, although uncertain, were calculable within the meaning of the caselaw.”
Engelmayer’s decision to dismiss the claims was also based on his ruling that the lawsuit was not distinct from other settled cases that involved the same athletes.
He noted that all of the plaintiffs were part of the class in O’Bannon v. NCAA, the case in 2015 that helped precipitate the modern system of NIL payments. Engelmayer also pointed out that Collins and nine other plaintiffs were members of the settlement class in a case after O’Bannon, NCAA v. Alston.
In addition to the similar classes, Engelmayer ruled that many of the claims could have been covered by prior litigation. He cited a point in oral arguments in which plaintiffs’ lawyers were asked, “How is the injunctive relief you’re seeking here any different from that which was sought in O’Bannon?”, and responded “I don’t know the answer to that question, your Honor.”
The Chalmers et al. case was one of many from former athletes who played too early to be considered for the House case seeking some form of NIL restitution, most of which are still pending.
The House settlement, meanwhile, is on the verge of final adoption. On Wednesday, though, Judge Claudia Wilken expressed an objection to the settlement’s treatment of roster limits. She has sought a way to “grandfather in” past athletes who would lose their spots with smaller roster sizes and will not approve the settlement until the issue is resolved.
