On July 2, we reported on Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins’ ruling that multimedia rights companies (MMRs) and third-party brand sponsors are not categorically excluded from the definition of “associated entities” under the House settlement. On August 4, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken affirmed that ruling, upholding the College Sports Commission’s (CSC) authority to review NIL deals between NCAA athletes and MMRs or third-party brand sponsors.

Following the plaintiffs’ appeal of the magistrate’s decision, Judge Wilken affirmed Judge Cousins’ reasoning and declined to “categorically declare” that MMR companies fall outside the scope of “associated entities and individuals” subject to CSC review.

Key Takeaways

The CSC’s Authority Over MMR Deals Is Intact. The CSC retains the authority to review NIL deals between athletes and MMR companies or third-party brand sponsors. This means that deals structured through these MMRs — which partner with colleges to manage intellectual property rights and facilitate third-party NIL deals — remain subject to CSC scrutiny under the settlement’s valid-business-purpose and fair-market-value standards.

The Fact-Intensive Standard Remains. Both Judge Cousins and Judge Wilken confirmed that determining whether an MMR or third-party sponsor is an “associated entity” is a fact-specific inquiry. If an MMR is helping a specific school with NIL deals and increasing its recruitment pool, it is an associated entity subject to CSC enforcement. Similarly, third-party sponsors cannot be entirely ruled out from CSC enforcement when they may be used by universities as a mechanism for providing additional money to athletes to increase recruitment.

Plaintiffs Gain Document Discovery Rights. Judge Wilken’s order did provide the plaintiffs with one important concession: she ruled that plaintiffs have a right to request and receive documents related to the CSC’s investigations of MMRs and third-party brand sponsors. Disputes related to those documents were referred back to Magistrate Judge Cousins, who serves as the special master appointed to handle enforcement-related matters.

Secondary Disputes Remain Unresolved. Judge Wilken sent several secondary disputes about evidence and documents back to Judge Cousins without ruling on them, indicating that additional litigation over the scope and application of these rules is likely.

Implications for Interested Stakeholders

This ruling reinforces what the Nebraska arbitration signaled earlier this year: the CSC is actively policing above-the-cap NIL arrangements that may serve as a back-end method of providing recruitment or retention incentives. Schools that rely on their MMR partners to facilitate NIL deals should expect continued scrutiny and should ensure that any deals submitted for CSC review have:

• A clearly defined valid business purpose (i.e., compensation for specific promotional services or deliverables offered for profit);
• Compensation at fair market value for the services rendered; and
• Documentation demonstrating that the deal is an arms-length commercial transaction, not a warehousing arrangement.

The CSC’s enforcement posture, combined with judicial backing at both the magistrate and district court levels, makes clear that the House settlement’s oversight framework applies broadly. MMRs, third-party sponsors, and schools should plan accordingly.

What’s Next

With Judge Wilken’s affirmance, the question of whether any particular MMR or third-party sponsor is an associated entity will be resolved on a case-by-case basis through the CSC’s review process and, where challenged, through arbitration and judicial oversight. The document discovery ordered by Judge Wilken may also provide greater transparency into how the CSC is applying its enforcement standards — information that could shape future challenges. We will continue monitoring these developments.