U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on Tuesday issued an order detailing how the April 7 fairness hearing for the NCAA’s settlement to resolve the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations will work—and who will get to speak.
LSU gymnast Livvy Dunne and the U.S. Department of Justice are among the objectors or attorneys for objectors Wilken has invited to appear.
Dunne, 22, has been one of the most successful college athletes in capitalizing on NIL, thanks in part to her more than 8 million followers on TikTok and more than 5 million followers on Instagram. Her appearance would lend some star quality to the courtroom hearing, which will feature a lot of middle-aged attorneys.
Dunne has landed lucrative endorsement deals with Reebok and American Eagle Outfitters, among other major brands, and her net worth is reportedly in the ballpark of $9.5 million. She was well known before she started her collegiate career in 2020, as she was a member of the U.S. Junior Women’s National Team. Her fame accelerated in 2020 when she posted videos on TikTok, and has been boosted further based on her relationship with Pittsburgh Pirates pitcher Paul Skenes.
Dunne’s success with NIL is atypical, as according to NCAA data in 2024, the median NIL deal is only $62 and the average is $2,716.
Wilken’s order indicates the hearing will begin at 10 a.m. local time in the federal courthouse in Oakland, Calif., and participants can appear in person or by Zoom. The hearing will end by 5 p.m.
At some point in the weeks following the hearing, Wilken will issue an order that grants final approval or denies the settlement, which she preliminarily approved last October. As Sportico explained on Monday, she will likely approve the settlement, though if she rejects it, the cases will return to the docket.
Wilken cited “time constraints” as a reason that not all objectors will be invited to speak and why those who are invited will have a limited window. The invitees also have until March 14 to indicate to Wilken whether they will be appearing in-person or remotely. If they appear, they will be asked to address whether and why Wilken should reject the settlement.
Should Dunne appear at the hearing, Wilken could ask her questions about her letter to the judge last month. Dunne raised several objections, including what she described as a “lack of transparency to how the calculations are being made for the estimate of lost NIL opportunities and if the same formula is being applied to all athletes across every sport.”
If approved, the settlement will compensate college athletes for lost NIL, video game and broadcasting opportunities on account of eligibility rules to the tune of around $2.8 billion over a 10-year-period. However, the money will not be shared equally by athlete, sport or sex, and it is expected that football players will receive the bulk of the money.
Dunne contends the process for determining how much lost NIL compensation she would receive is unclear, and a settlement website that provides an estimate for a calculation didn’t work for her until Jan. 31. In the motion for final approval, attorneys for the plaintiffs argued they “were not required to provide estimated damages allocations in order to provide sufficient notice,” but still did so “in an effort to promote transparency.”
Dunne also maintains the formula for lost NIL opportunities prior to the NCAA lifting its prohibition on NIL deals in 2021 (which followed states enacting NIL laws that made it illegal for the NCAA, conferences and schools to punish athletes over NIL deals) is deficient, because it doesn’t reflect how NIL is a growing and evolving market.
She mentions that it took time for businesses “who were unfamiliar with NIL” to adjust over the last few years, but their investment has accelerated. Further, she claims the settlement doesn’t adequately factor in lost NIL opportunities for college bound athletes who may have enjoyed “viral social media moments.”
Another interesting entry on Wilken’s invite list is the United States government. Whether a representative of the Department of Justice agrees to participate in the hearing will be an interesting issue.
In the last full workday of President Joe Biden’s administration, the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest objecting to a new structure where schools can share with athletes up to 22% of the average power conference revenue from athletic media rights, tickets and sponsorships, with a $21 million ceiling that the DOJ called a “salary cap.”
The problem with the arrangement, the DOJ maintained, is that the cap was not negotiated with a players’ union and arguably should be set higher, since some colleges might be willing to offer more money to athletes to recruit them. The DOJ also warned the settlement could be used by the NCAA to defend against prospective antitrust litigation. In Monday’s motion, attorneys for the players stressed the settlement does not provide antitrust immunity.
The Department of Justice is now under the control of Attorney General Pam Bondi, whom President Donald Trump nominated. It’s possible Bondi and her staff hold a different view than her predecessor, former Attorney General Merrick Garland, on these topics.
As for other listed potential speakers, Steven Molo has argued the settlement “is discriminatory toward women,” because the denial of NIL opportunities until 2021 disproportionately harmed women athletes. Michael P. Lehmann has identified several alleged flaws with the settlement, including that it posits changes—such as review of NIL deals in excess of $600—that would arguably violate state NIL laws. Laura Reathaford asserts the imposition of roster caps (and dropping of scholarship caps) will cause some D-I athletes to lose their athletic opportunities.
The list also mentions “Michelle Roberts,” which is likely a reference to former NBPA executive director and longtime attorney Michele Roberts. In January, Roberts wrote a letter to Wilken expressing several concerns about the settlement. Among them is that a revenue-sharing cap is legally problematic and that the settlement tries to function as a labor agreement without having been negotiated with a players’ union. She also worries the settlement will make it more likely that Congress passes bills that limit athletes’ employment and other rights.
As stated in Wilken’s order, here’s the list of invites:
1. Objectors represented by Steven Molo of MoloLamken LLP.
2. Objector represented by Stephen Tillery of Korein Tillery LLC.
3. Objectors represented by Michael P. Lehmann of Hausfeld LLP.
4. Objector represented by Laura Reathaford of Lathrop GPM.
5. Objectors represented by Patrick A. Bradford of Bradford Edwards LLP.
6. Objectors represented by Alex R. Straus of Milberg LLP.
7. Objector represented by Caroline G. McGlamry of Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick,
Morrison & Norwood PC.
8. Objectors represented by Leigh Ernst Friestedt.
9. Objectors represented by Michelle Roberts.
10. Objector the United States.
11. Objector Gannon Flynn.
12. Objector Gracelyn Laudermilch.
13. Objector Benjamin Burr-Kirven.
14. Objector Olivia Dunne.
