Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractbreach of contractplaintiffdefendantmotiontrustantitrustmotion to dismisspiracy
plaintiffdefendantmotiontrustleaseregulationantitrustpiracy

Related Cases

Race Tires America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 614 F.3d 57, 2010-2 Trade Cases P 77,111
View Case »
Williams v. CWI, Inc., 777 F.Supp. 1006
View Case »
Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc., 34 Cal.App.4th 790, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 639, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1783, 23 Media L. Rep. 1920
View Case »
Sherry v. East Suburban Football League, 292 Mich.App. 23, 807 N.W.2d 859
View Case »
Taylor v. Johnson, 257 F.3d 470
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Litigation, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2011 WL 1642256, 2011-1 Trade Cases P 77,448

Facts

The case involves consolidated actions brought by former college athletes against Electronic Arts Inc. (EA), the Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC), and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The Antitrust Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to restrain trade in violation of the Sherman Act by fixing the price of their likenesses at zero dollars and requiring student-athletes to sign forms relinquishing their rights in perpetuity. The Publicity Plaintiffs claim that EA misappropriated their likenesses in video games without consent, violating their rights of publicity. The court considered motions to dismiss from the defendants.

Antitrust Plaintiffs allege that, during their respective collegiate careers, they 'competed pursuant to the NCAA's rules and regulations' and signed one or more release forms 'that the NCAA has interpreted as a release of the student-athlete's rights with respect to his image, likeness and/or name in connection with merchandise sold by the NCAA, its members, and/or its licensees.'

Issue

Did the defendants engage in anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Act and infringe upon the publicity rights of the plaintiffs?

Did the defendants engage in anticompetitive conduct in violation of the Sherman Act and infringe upon the publicity rights of the plaintiffs?

Rule

Analysis

Conclusion

The court granted EA's motion to dismiss the Antitrust Plaintiffs' claims but denied the motions to dismiss from CLC and NCAA, allowing the Publicity Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim to proceed.

Who won?

The prevailing party in this case is the NCAA and CLC, as their motions to dismiss were denied, allowing the claims against them to move forward. The court found that the Antitrust Plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege a conspiracy involving EA, leading to the dismissal of their claims against EA. This outcome indicates that the court recognized the potential validity of the claims against NCAA and CLC, while finding the allegations against EA lacking.

The prevailing party in this case is the NCAA and CLC, as their motions to dismiss were denied, allowing the claims against them to move forward. The court found that the Antitrust Plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege a conspiracy involving EA, leading to the dismissal of their claims against EA.

You must be