Bradford Edwards LLP’s antitrust work in Division I (“D1”) college sports continues in the latest antitrust case to reach the Ninth Circuit. The firm’s work is featured in a recent article “March Madness or Just Plain Madness? Updates on Recent Name, Image & Likeness Litigation,” written by attorney Christal Joy Porter for Citations, the official magazine of the Ventura County, California Bar Association. The article is based on the initial round of briefing in the Ninth Circuit whereby six groups of appellants are challenging the validity of various aspects of the district court approved settlement, which binds four distinct classes of athletes. In the article, Porter provides a description of the rapidly evolving landscape of the D1 college athletes’ Name, Image & Likeness (“NIL”) litigation – a topic with far-reaching implications for college athletics, antitrust law, and student athlete rights.
Porter’s article covers the appeal of the landmark In re College Athlete NIL Litigation settlement – an over $2.5 billion district court approved settlement affecting over 390,000 former D1 athletes – and examines its three major injunctive relief components: revenue caps, roster limits and NIL deal enforcement through a newly created “NIL Go” platform and College Sports Commission. The article also covers Bradford Edwards’ initial Ninth Circuit briefing on behalf of former African American D1 basketball player, now attorney, K. Braeden Anderson. The article mentions the work of Patrick A. Bradford, who leads the firm’s antitrust practice, who led the firm’s briefing. The article was published before the firm’s reply brief was submitted to the Ninth Circuit on February 17, 2026. The firm’s briefing argues that Black D1 athletes are particularly harmed by the low-ball settlement amounts because Black D1 football and basketball players created the billion-dollar industry. The firm’s arguments include: (i) that the district court failed to apply the required heighted scrutiny in a settlement-only posture, (ii) improperly included a revenue cap in violation of Section I of the Sherman Act, and (iii) denied Black athletes proper due process notice.
We encourage you to read the full “March Madness or Just Plain Madness?” article here.
You can also read Bradford Edward’s Ninth Circuit reply brief here.
This memorandum is provided by Bradford Edwards LLP for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. This memorandum is considered to be advertising under applicable state laws.
