• NCAA: O'Bannon Trial June 9, Keller Case March 2015

    Despite the NCAA's requests to delay or redefine the Ed O'Bannon antitrust trial, a US District Judge has kept the scheduled trial date of June 9. Judge Claudia Wilken also separated the O'Bannon antitrust case from the Sam Keller right-of-publicity case - which focuses on video games - setting a March 2015 date for that case.

    The NCAA had requested that all evidence and claims related to video games be removed, however that was denied meaning that evidence involving the NCAA, Electronic Arts and the Collegiate Licensing Company can be used.

    As the NCAA works to give increased autonomy to the five power conferences allowing them to provide student-athletes with unprecedented resources and benefits, the ongoing lawsuits delay any reform efforts in regards to players likeness/licensing which continues to prevent any possibility of college sports video games returning.


    From CBS Sports:

    A federal judge on Friday set the stage for the Ed O'Bannon antitrust trial to occur as scheduled on June 9.

    U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken denied the NCAA's outstanding motions seeking to delay or redefine the case and kept the scheduled trial date. She also separated the O'Bannon antitrust case from the Sam Keller right-of-publicity case that's mainly focused on videogames and set a March 2015 trial date for the Keller case.

    Wilken denied the NCAA's request to sever all evidence and claims related to videogames from the antitrust case. That means the O'Bannon plaintiffs can use evidence and arguments about the NCAA's relationship with Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing Company over videogames.

    The NCAA had sought to delay all of next month's trial until February, citing Seventh Amendment rights due to the overlap of issues in the two trials. That came after the O'Bannon plaintiffs dropped their individual damage claims against the NCAA last week.

    “Although the plaintiffs' eleventh-hour change in strategy has denied a jury the opportunity to decide the important issues in the O'Bannon litigation, we are prepared for trial and look forward to presenting our case to the Judge,” NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy said in a statement. “At the same time, we will continue to prepare for a jury trial in the Keller case that is scheduled for March.”



    Image courtesy: New York Times
    Comments 12 Comments
    1. souljahbill's Avatar
      souljahbill -
      Bring back NCAA games!!!
    1. GatorfanStovy's Avatar
      GatorfanStovy -
      Man I wish we could get ncaa on next gen it would be awesome! Next gen brought Madden back to life ( at least for me)
    1. CLW's Avatar
      CLW -
      I just love how (to the best of my knowledge) the "unbiased" judge has granted every motion the plaintiffs want and denied every motion the defendants want. Justice is indeed blind.
    1. Escobar's Avatar
      Escobar -
      Quote Originally Posted by CLW View Post
      I just love how (to the best of my knowledge) the "unbiased" judge has granted every motion the plaintiffs want and denied every motion the defendants want. Justice is indeed blind.
      So I assume that if the judge denied every motion the plaintiffs requested and approved every dedendant's motion, to you she would be unbiased.
    1. cdj's Avatar
      cdj -
      For those wondering if the plaintiffs would make money out of these lawsuits (and ensuing settlements), the answer is in bold below.


      Proposed video game settlement could help current NCAA players

      As many as 100,000 college football and men's basketball players – including athletes with remaining eligibility -- would be able to receive money from a $40 million proposed settlement of claims related to the alleged use of their names and likenesses in NCAA-themed video games.

      The proposed settlement, filed Friday in California with U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, would conclude allegations made against video game manufacturer Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing Co., the nation's leading collegiate trademark licensing and marketing firm.

      EA and CLC were co-defendants with the NCAA in one case filed on behalf of plaintiffs led by former Arizona State and Nebraska quarterback Sam Keller and another on behalf of plaintiffs led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon. EA was a sole defendant in two other cases -- one on behalf of former Rutgers football player Ryan Hart and another on behalf of former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston.

      A roster of named plaintiffs would receive incentive payments ranging from $15,000 apiece for Keller, O'Bannon and Hart, to $5,000 or $2,500 for others.

      Beyond that, the money would be distributed based on a formula that takes into account the number of players who end up making valid claims; whether the players were on a football or men's basketball roster, or also were depicted in a game; and the number of years in which they were on a roster and/or appeared in the game. If an extremely large percentage of players eligible to make claims do so, the per-player payments could range from about $50 to several hundred dollars, Aragon said. If half of the players eligible make claims, the per-player payments could range from around $100 to around $2,000, Aragon said.

      The document states that the proposed settlement would release all claims against EA and CLC, but it also suggests that there is evidence that strongly backs the plaintiffs' allegations that the avatars in the video games are modeled on the actual athletes. This is a pivotal claim in the Keller plaintiffs' ongoing case against the NCAA, which has been set for trial in March 2015. It also is a claim that the NCAA unequivocally contested in a recent pre-trial filing in the O'Bannon case, which still involves issues related to video games.

      The NCAA "contends that the claims against the NCAA based on EA's NCAA-themed video games are not supported because those games do not utilize the name, image or likeness of college football and men's basketball players," the NCAA wrote in the pre-trial filing May 14. "Instead, EA's NCAA videogames utilize generic faces and images of football and basketball players that are not based on actual individuals."
    1. SmoothPancakes's Avatar
      SmoothPancakes -
      Oh, the plaintiffs are getting money alright. Their lawyers are. The lawyers are getting something like $13 million if I saw right.

      Posted With Tapatalkbecause I'm a lazy ass
    1. jaymo76's Avatar
      jaymo76 -
      Attention Keller and O'Bannon... you know another way a lot of people earn money? By getting a job! If I had the skill and ability to have played NCAA Ball I would have been extremely honoured to have seen myself in a video game. A full ride scholarship would be a great exchange for being in a video game IMO.
    1. CLW's Avatar
      CLW -
      Quote Originally Posted by cdj View Post
      For those wondering if the plaintiffs would make money out of these lawsuits (and ensuing settlements), the answer is in bold below.


      Proposed video game settlement could help current NCAA players

      As many as 100,000 college football and men's basketball players – including athletes with remaining eligibility -- would be able to receive money from a $40 million proposed settlement of claims related to the alleged use of their names and likenesses in NCAA-themed video games.

      The proposed settlement, filed Friday in California with U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, would conclude allegations made against video game manufacturer Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing Co., the nation's leading collegiate trademark licensing and marketing firm.

      EA and CLC were co-defendants with the NCAA in one case filed on behalf of plaintiffs led by former Arizona State and Nebraska quarterback Sam Keller and another on behalf of plaintiffs led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon. EA was a sole defendant in two other cases -- one on behalf of former Rutgers football player Ryan Hart and another on behalf of former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston.

      A roster of named plaintiffs would receive incentive payments ranging from $15,000 apiece for Keller, O'Bannon and Hart, to $5,000 or $2,500 for others.

      Beyond that, the money would be distributed based on a formula that takes into account the number of players who end up making valid claims; whether the players were on a football or men's basketball roster, or also were depicted in a game; and the number of years in which they were on a roster and/or appeared in the game. If an extremely large percentage of players eligible to make claims do so, the per-player payments could range from about $50 to several hundred dollars, Aragon said. If half of the players eligible make claims, the per-player payments could range from around $100 to around $2,000, Aragon said.

      The document states that the proposed settlement would release all claims against EA and CLC, but it also suggests that there is evidence that strongly backs the plaintiffs' allegations that the avatars in the video games are modeled on the actual athletes. This is a pivotal claim in the Keller plaintiffs' ongoing case against the NCAA, which has been set for trial in March 2015. It also is a claim that the NCAA unequivocally contested in a recent pre-trial filing in the O'Bannon case, which still involves issues related to video games.

      The NCAA "contends that the claims against the NCAA based on EA's NCAA-themed video games are not supported because those games do not utilize the name, image or likeness of college football and men's basketball players," the NCAA wrote in the pre-trial filing May 14. "Instead, EA's NCAA videogames utilize generic faces and images of football and basketball players that are not based on actual individuals."
      wooo don't spend that $100 all in one place. Moreover, that's if only 1/2 of the players make claims. If that % is higher obviously the athlete's "big" pay days might end up being a combo meal at McD's
    1. CLW's Avatar
      CLW -
      Plaintiffs' Trial Brief:

      https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7wo...M1aXZaYXM/edit
    1. cdj's Avatar
      cdj -
      NCAA Reacts To EA Settlement

      First, under no circumstances will we allow the proposed agreement between EA and plaintiff’s lawyers to negatively impact the eligibility of any student-athlete…not one will miss a practice or a game if this settlement is approved by the court. This proposed settlement does not equate to payment of current student-athletes for their athletic performance, regardless of how it is being publicly characterized.

      Second, the real benefactors of this settlement are the lawyers, who could pocket more than $15 million.

      We have not yet determined whether to formally object to any of the settlement terms.
    1. CLW's Avatar
      CLW -
      Quote Originally Posted by cdj View Post
      NCAA Reacts To EA Settlement

      First, under no circumstances will we allow the proposed agreement between EA and plaintiff’s lawyers to negatively impact the eligibility of any student-athlete…not one will miss a practice or a game if this settlement is approved by the court. This proposed settlement does not equate to payment of current student-athletes for their athletic performance, regardless of how it is being publicly characterized.

      Second, the real benefactors of this settlement are the lawyers, who could pocket more than $15 million.

      We have not yet determined whether to formally object to any of the settlement terms.
      They would be nuts to not object. All non settling defendants in a class-action object to a proposed settlement and they always lose on their objections.
    1. souljahbill's Avatar
      souljahbill -
      So, since O'Bannon won, does this mean that, as payment, EA can give a free copy of the game to any player who agrees to be in a new NCAA game? To me, if that's the case, they can get all the schools into the game that way.