If you play Division I football or men's basketball on a full scholarship in a state that protects NIL pay, this antitrust case is about the money the complaint says the NIL caps took off the table.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. The NCAA, the Power Four conferences, the College Sports Commission and the named individual defendants have not been found liable, there is no certified class, and there is nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
Two named plaintiffs — football players at the University of Southern California and Stanford University — have filed a proposed antitrust class action against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the four "Power Four" conferences (the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC), the newly created College Sports Commission (CSC), and the chief executives of each of those bodies. The case, captioned Ili v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 3:26-cv-05562, was filed on June 9, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.The complaint does not challenge the well-known House settlement — the roughly $2.8 billion deal that lets Division I schools pay athletes directly. Instead, it challenges how the defendants have implemented that settlement's NIL restrictions. Plaintiffs allege the defendants agreed to enforce the pay caps uniformly in all 50 states, including 17 "NIL Rights States" whose laws prohibit athletic associations and conferences from restricting college athletes' name, image and likeness (NIL) compensation. According to the complaint, that coordinated, nationwide enforcement is an unlawful restraint of trade that suppressed the pay these athletes could otherwise have earned.
The Background: The House Settlement and NIL Pay
For decades the NCAA barred college athletes from earning money off their name, image and likeness. That began to change in 2019, when California passed the Fair Pay to Play Act — the first state NIL law — and accelerated after the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous 2021 decision in NCAA v. Alston. In 2020, athletes sued the NCAA and the major conferences in what became In re College Athlete NIL Litigation (the "House" case), and in June 2025 the court approved a settlement with two parts: about $2.8 billion in back damages, and an Injunctive Relief Settlement (IRS) that lets Division I schools pay athletes directly, subject to caps.Under that framework, schools that opt in can make direct NIL payments up to an annual cap — set at roughly $20.5 million for the 2025–26 academic year, calculated as 22% of average conference revenue — and NIL deals from "associated" boosters and collectives are screened for a "valid business purpose" and a market-rate "range of compensation." The Power Four conferences launched the College Sports Commission to enforce those rules, and a clearinghouse called "NIL Go" to review third-party deals of $600 or more. Our overview of the underlying deal is here: the $2.8B NCAA college athlete settlement.
What the Lawsuit Alleges
The core of the complaint is a legal distinction: plaintiffs allege the House settlement permitted the NIL caps but did not require them to be applied everywhere, and that the court expressly declined to find the settlement preempts state law. Because 17 states have laws that forbid the NCAA and conferences from restricting athlete NIL pay, the plaintiffs contend the defendants had no authority to enforce the caps in those states.By enforcing them anyway — uniformly, through the CSC and NIL Go — the defendants allegedly:
- Fixed the price and output of NIL compensation by capping what schools and boosters may pay, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
- Ran a group boycott, allegedly conditioning conference membership, athlete eligibility and postseason participation on compliance with the caps and threatening to exclude schools or athletes who transact outside them.
- Violated California's Cartwright Act and Fair Pay to Play Act, and tortiously interfered with athletes' prospective NIL deals under California law.
The complaint also points to public statements by conference commissioners and the NCAA president acknowledging that state NIL laws stood in the way and that only an act of Congress could override them — statements plaintiffs say show the defendants knew the caps conflicted with state law but implemented them regardless. It further cites a December 2025 letter from a bipartisan group of state attorneys general objecting to a proposed "University Participation Agreement" that would have bound schools to CSC enforcement. Whether the settlement preempts state law, and whether the defendants' conduct violates antitrust law, are contested questions a court has not decided.
Who Would Be Covered
The filing proposes four classes, all consisting of Division I athletes on full scholarships who play FBS football or men's basketball ("Revenue-Generating College Athletes") at schools in the NIL Rights States: a Federal and a California class for direct school pay, and a Federal and a California class for booster/collective ("associated third-party") NIL. The complaint estimates more than 2,000 members in each federal class and more than 400 in each California class.Per the complaint's Appendix A, the 17 NIL Rights States are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia. The proposed class period runs from June 6, 2025 — the day the settlement was approved — forward. No class has been certified, and certification is decided by the court.
What the Plaintiffs Are Seeking
The plaintiffs ask the court to certify the classes and award treble (tripled) damages under the Sherman Act and the Cartwright Act, plus damages for the alleged tortious interference. They also seek a limited injunction under Section 16 of the Clayton Act to stop enforcement of NIL caps in the NIL Rights States that exceed what the settlement authorized, along with a declaratory judgment and attorneys' fees. Notably, the complaint repeatedly states that plaintiffs are not asking to unwind the House settlement itself — only to challenge how it has been applied in states that protect NIL pay. This lawsuit is an antitrust claim over pay competition; for the broader legal concept, see our explainer on the Sherman Antitrust Act.What Happens Next
The plaintiffs say they will ask the court to relate the case to the original House litigation before Judge Claudia Wilken, who has overseen the matter since 2020. From there, the defendants will have an opportunity to respond and likely move to dismiss, and the court will address class certification. Any recovery for athletes would come only after those steps — there is no fund, no claim form and no deadline at this stage. We will update this page as the docket develops.Frequently Asked Questions
What is the NCAA NIL antitrust lawsuit about?
The complaint alleges the NCAA, the Power Four conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC) and the College Sports Commission coordinated to enforce the House settlement's NIL pay limits uniformly across the country, including in 17 states whose laws prohibit athletic associations from restricting college athletes' NIL compensation. Plaintiffs claim that coordination is an unlawful restraint of trade that suppressed athlete pay. These are unproven allegations.
Who is covered by the proposed classes?
The four proposed classes consist of Division I FBS football and men's basketball players on full athletic scholarships whose schools are in one of the 17 NIL Rights States and who were affected by the pay caps during the class period (since June 6, 2025). No class has been certified, so nothing is guaranteed.
Is there a settlement or money to claim right now?
No. This is a newly filed complaint. There is no certified class, no settlement, and no claim form. There is nothing to file at this stage. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What are the NIL Rights States?
According to the complaint, they are the 17 states — led by California's Fair Pay to Play Act — whose statutes bar the NCAA, conferences and similar bodies from preventing college athletes from earning NIL compensation or penalizing their schools for allowing it: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia.
Does the lawsuit challenge the House settlement?
The plaintiffs say no. They state they are not trying to modify, vacate or undo the House settlement's Injunctive Relief Settlement. They challenge only the way defendants implemented the NIL restrictions in states whose laws prohibit them, which the complaint says the settlement never required and the court never found to preempt state law.
Sources
- Complaint, Ili v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 3:26-cv-05562 (N.D. Cal. filed June 9, 2026) — read the full complaint (PDF).
- California Fair Pay to Play Act, Cal. Educ. Code § 67456.
- A Letter from NCAA President Charlie Baker, NCAA (June 6, 2025).
- College Sports Commission — Enforcement and NIL Go program pages.
- State Attorneys General letter regarding the University Participation Agreement, Tennessee Attorney General (Dec. 3, 2025).
- Eric Olson, College Sports Commissioners Laud $2.8B Antitrust Settlement, Associated Press (June 9, 2025).
Read the Complaint (PDF)
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
