On April 20, 2026, settlement class counsel for the plaintiffs in House v. NCAA filed a motion seeking to enforce the fourth amended stipulation and settlement agreement, effectively asking the court to rein in the College Sports Commission (CSC).[1]
The motion, filed by Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler, asks the court to declare the following:[2]
- Multimedia Rights (MMR) companies are not “Associated Entities or Individuals” as defined and understood in the Injunctive Relief Settlement (IRS), therefore, making NIL agreements between student-athletes and MMR companies not subject to review by the CSC (or any enforcement body), unless the party ultimately receiving and paying for the use of a student-athlete’s NIL is an Associated Entity or Individual; and
- Third-party brand sponsors are not “Associated Entities or Individuals,” merely because a school was involved in arranging or procuring an NIL agreement between the sponsor and student-athlete.
Class counsel argues that court intervention is necessary because of the CSC’s overreaching enforcement efforts that go “well beyond what the Settlement permits.”[3] While the House settlement allows student-athletes to “freely” enter NIL agreements with little oversight from House defendants, the House settlement allows the defendants to “regulate third-party NIL agreements” between student-athletes and “Associated Entities or Individuals.”[4] This, they argue, has created a system where the CSC has scrutinized “every” NIL agreement with a student-athlete, specifically, the agreements with MMR and third-party brand sponsors, identifying these individuals or entities as “associated” with the school, and subjecting the agreements to a heightened level of “fair market” scrutiny — i.e., confirming that the deals are for a valid business purpose and fall within a fair market range of compensation.
This comes after the CSC issued guidance on April 7, 2026, defining “Associated Entities” as entities that exist:[5]
In significant part, to promote or support a particular Member Institution’s athletic department and those entities that create or identify NIL opportunities solely for a particular Member Institution’s athletes.
Included within this definition is any entity that has been “directed or requested” by a school’s athletics department staff to assist in the recruiting or retention of a student-athlete or has otherwise assisted in the recruitment or retention of a student-athlete.[6] The CSC’s guidance also provided a fact pattern where a school’s MMR is in the role of facilitator — i.e., providing payment to a student-athlete — creating an “Associated Entity” relationship requiring review of the agreement and payment terms.[7]
This, class counsel argues, violates the language in the IRS narrowing the defendants’ regulatory authority — via the CSC — by limiting the definition of “Associated Entities or Individuals.”[8]
The CSC, in defending its practice thus far, responded with the following statement:
The CSC’s application of the rules on associated entities is straightforward and fact-based. Those rules, which plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to, clearly state that entities directed by schools to assist in recruiting are associated entities. Under the settlement, arbitration is the proper forum to challenge the CSC’s application of these rules. This motion was filed to evade an imminent arbitration in which the CSC will prove, based on evidence, that a school’s multimedia rights partner is an associated entity.
With the CSC classifying MMR partners and certain third parties as “Associated Entities,” which have become integral pieces of the overall compensation package for student-athletes — the extra scrutiny on the “fair market value” of any potential deal has caused longer than expected wait times for deals to clear the CSC.
If class counsel is successful, this could spell trouble for the benefits pool which was negotiated as part of the House settlement.
[1] In Re: College Athlete NIL Litigation, 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal. 2026), Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Enforce the Fourth Amended Stipulation and Settlement Agreement [ECF No. 958-1, Ex. 1].
[2] Id. at 2.
[3] Id. at 5.
[4] Id.
[5] College Sports Commission Memorandum, Third-Party NIL Deals & Revenue Share, at 3 (April 7, 2026) https://assets.tina.io/29b83311-e587-42b1-861e-87ebde9aa253/CSC%20Memo%20Third-Party%20NIL%20Deals%20and%20Revenue%20Share%204.7.2026.pdf
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 2-3.
[8] In Re: College Athlete NIL Litigation, 4:20-cv-03919, at 7.