USA – CALIFORNIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Dan Mogin and Eric Miller, Mogin Law LLP
tion from artificial intelligence products in reaching its conclusion. Read about it on the Mogin Law Blog. The remedies portion of the ad case is underway as this article is being written. NIL and Collegiate Athlete Litigation In In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No 4:20-cv- 03919-CW (N.D. Cal.), consolidated with Hubbard v NCAA and Carter v NCAA, Judge Claudia Wilken approved a USD2.576 billion settlement in June 2025. The settlement allows schools to share up to 22% of athletic revenues with players and eliminates schol- arship caps. It compensates athletes for decades of suppressed earnings under NCAA amateurism rules. The court emphasised that the settlement does not grant antitrust immunity to the NCAA or its member institutions, preserving the possibility of future litiga- tion. This case builds on earlier decisions in O’Bannon v NCAA, 802 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2015) and Alston v NCAA, 141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021) and signals a shift in how courts view labour market restrictions in sports. Notable Settlements and Enforcement Actions Sutter Health In Sidibe v Sutter Health, No 12-cv-04854-LB (N.D. Cal.), plaintiffs alleged that Sutter’s tying and exclusive dealing practices inflated healthcare costs by USD400 million. After a Ninth Circuit ruling in 2022 (103 F.4th 675 (9th Cir. 2024)), Sutter settled the case in 2024, agreeing to financial compensation and operational reforms. In a separate 2019 settlement, UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust v Sutter Health, Case No CSG 14-538451 (Cal. Super. Ct.), Sutter paid USD575 million to resolve similar claims. The settlement included injunctive relief requiring Sutter to change its contracting practices and submit to compliance monitoring. Vitol and SK Energy Americas In July 2024, California’s Attorney General announced a USD50 million settlement with Vitol Inc. and SK Energy Americas Inc., resolving claims of gasoline price manipulation following a refinery explosion. The firms were accused of exploiting market disruption to inflate prices, violating the Cartwright Act. The case highlights the importance of antitrust enforcement
during market shocks and the need for vigilant over- sight of commodity trading practices (The State of California v Vitol Inc., et al. McKinsey & Co.). In re: McKinsey & Co., Inc. National Prescription Opi- ate Consultant Litigation, Case No 21-md-02996 (N.D. Cal.), third-party payor plaintiffs claim that McKinsey played a central role in the opioid crisis by advising multiple opioid manufacturers and other industry par- ticipants on how to sell as many prescription opioids as possible. McKinsey reached a settlement agree- ment to pay USD78 million. This case is the first of its kind to resolve claims in opioid-related litigation, addressing costs incurred by third-party payors and establishing a precedent for similar claims arising from the opioid epidemic. National Collegiate Athletic Association In Ray, et al. v Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No 1:23-cv-00425 (E.D. Cal.), plaintiffs claim that certain NCAA rules that prohibited schools from pay- ing wages, salaries, or benefits to Division I athletics coaches designated as “volunteer coaches” in sports, excluding baseball, were anticompetitive. The case emphasises the significance of antitrust laws in regu- lating labour practices in college sports, confronting limitations on compensation, and addressing wage- In Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. v Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 31 F.4th 651 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc), the court rejected the “de minimis” rule and held that the presence of uninjured class members does not defeat predominance. This aligns the Ninth Circuit with other circuits and strengthens plaintiffs’ ability to certify classes in complex markets, particularly where individualised damages may vary but common ques- tions of liability dominate. Federal-State coordination challenges The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 amend- ed 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (a) to prevent the consolidation of state-led antitrust actions with federal multidistrict litigation proceedings. This empowers state attorneys general to pursue independent enforcement strate- fixing in the athletics industry. Judicial and Legislative Shifts Ninth Circuit clarifies Rule 23 standards
339 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook