More Fallout from EA Likeness Settlement

[cdj]

Following the cancellation of a college sports title from EA SPORTS for 2014 - and likely indefinitely - there has been no shortage of news, albeit expected or bizarre. Here is a quick rundown of what has transpired since then:

- Kotaku: The NCAA Football development team was 'blindsided' by this news and were hard at work on College Football 15 when the cancellation came down. Some NCAA staffers were moved to Madden, while others (from NCAA & Madden) were let go.

- The lawyers for the plaintiffs never intended for EA to quit making NCAA Football games. Terms of the settlement did NOT include any language preventing EA from publishing the game or future name, image, or likeness usage. The Lanier Law Firm did announce that "based on this settlement and other recent court rulings, EA Sports has agreed to change the way it develops future games featuring NCAA athletes in order to protect the rights to their likenesses."

- Friday night, TGT's cdj joined pastapadre & Rich Grisham on the Press Row Hangout to discuss the cancellation of NCAA Football.

- Despite the cancellation, EA SPORTS has continued to be active on the NCAA Football Twitter & Facebook accounts. The company has even begun to market the cancellation, telling customers to "Get It Before It's Gone" via their official product webpage and dynamic banner images in various EA SPORTS titles, including Tiger Woods PGA TOUR.

- Following the settlement, one of the litigants (Ryan Hart, Rutgers) ceased communication with the legal team and retained new counsel. However, there is concern that some of his requests "would be contrary to law and would breach (their) fiduciary duties to the class as a whole." In the Friday night filing, the legal team stated that Hart "has chosen not to communicate" with them. Instead, they wrote, Hart "has communicated information … through his father-in-law indicating that Hart's narrow personal interests now conflict with the absent class members and that he no longer adequately represents the class as a whole."

***

You can view the page at http://www.thegamingtailgate.com/for...ess-Settlement

[baseballplyrmvp]

such a shame that the game will no longer be made. its too bad that they immediately pulled the plug and didnt offer one last update as a farewell present.

[JBHuskers]

such a shame that the game will no longer be made. its too bad that they immediately pulled the plug and didnt offer one last update as a farewell present.

- The lawyers for the plaintiffs never intended for EA to quit making NCAA Football games. Terms of the settlement did NOT include any language preventing EA from publishing the game or future name, image, or likeness usage. The Lanier Law Firm did announce that "based on this settlement and other recent court rulings, EA Sports has agreed to change the way it develops future games featuring NCAA athletes in order to protect the rights to their likenesses."

[SmoothPancakes]

Yeah, EA agreed to change the way alright. They changed the way by completely scrapping their last and final game series involving college athletes (first NCAA Basketball in 2010 and now NCAA Football).

[CLW]

- The lawyers for the plaintiffs never intended for EA to quit making NCAA Football games. Terms of the settlement did NOT include any language preventing EA from publishing the game or future name, image, or likeness usage. The Lanier Law Firm did announce that "based on this settlement and other recent court rulings, EA Sports has agreed to change the way it develops future games featuring NCAA athletes in order to protect the rights to their likenesses."

Thats CLASSIC liberal BS spin from the Plaintiffs lawyers. No way in hell would/could a company continue to make a game if it settles and or loses a lawsuit like that.

[souljahbill]

Thats CLASSIC liberal BS spin from the Plaintiffs lawyers. No way in hell would/could a company continue to make a game if it settles and or loses a lawsuit like that.

Differentiate between liberal spin and conservative spin in regards to this subject, please.

[CLW]

Differentiate between liberal spin and conservative spin in regards to this subject, please.

Plaintiffs lawyers are almost always liberals and they ALWAYS claim their lawsuits have no impact on business but real life results indicate otherwise (see EA no longer making NCAA and laying off X number of employees)

[baseballplyrmvp]

Plaintiffs lawyers are almost always liberals and they ALWAYS claim their lawsuits have no impact on business but real life results indicate otherwise (see EA no longer making NCAA and laying off X number of employees)

and loses millions in video game sales

[bdoughty]

[steelerfan]

[oweb26]

Thats CLASSIC liberal BS spin from the Plaintiffs lawyers. No way in hell would/could a company continue to make a game if it settles and or loses a lawsuit like that.

[Deuce]

Awesome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[cdj]

Former Rutgers quarterback Ryan Hart was "completely uninformed" about negotiations that led to the proposed settlement of his and several other cases against video game manufacturer Electronic Arts concerning the use of college athletes' names likenesses, new lawyers for Hart said in court documents filed Monday.

"Therefore," the lawyers wrote, "no informed consent was given by any plaintiff to reach a settlement."

The filing, in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, was made in opposition to an effort to have Hart replaced as the named plaintiff in one of a set of lawsuits against EA. It gives no indication of whether Hart will object to the settlement. But it creates turbulence around the proposed deal, which would narrow the ongoing legal fight between a group of former and current college athletes and the NCAA.

Michael Hausfeld, who has been involved with a case against EA primarily on behalf of plaintiffs led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon, has confirmed a report made first by The New York Times that EA and the nation's leading collegiate trademark licensing firm, Collegiate Licensing Co. (CLC), have agreed to pay $40 million under an arrangement that â?? if approved by various courts â?? will conclude Hart's case and two others against EA and would end both companies' role in a related case that will continue with the NCAA as the sole defendant.

In Monday's filing, Hart's new lawyers wrote: " â?¦ it must be clarified that Hart, both individually and as the proposed class representative in this action, takes no position with respect to the proposed settlement, until such time as he is able to review the factual material that lead [sic] up to the settlement â?¦ with his new counsel."

In the filing and in a signed statement by Hart himself, it is made clear that Hart hoped to have some role in settlement discussions and that he was unhappy to have first learned about the proposed deal by reading news reports about it.

Click here for the full article.

[bdoughty]

In the filing and in a signed statement by Hart himself, it is made clear that Hart hoped to have some role in settlement discussions and that he was unhappy to have first learned about the proposed deal by reading news reports about it.[/I]

[cdj]

NCAA makes new effort to stop O'Bannon class action bid

Lawyers representing the NCAA in an anti-trust lawsuit concerning the use of college athletes' names and likenesses on Monday filed documents describing new evidence that they argue is fatal to the plaintiffs' pending bid to have the case certified as a class action.

Currently the case involves former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon and two dozen other current and former college football and men's basketball players taking on the NCAA. However, if U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken grants class-action status, it could allow thousands of former and current football and men's basketball players to join the case, creating the possibility of a damages award in the billions of dollars.

First, though, Wilken must determine that the case meets criteria that are set under the federal rules of civil legal procedure. The criteria basically require that there be questions of law or fact that are common to the prospective wider class of plaintiffs and that those questions are greater in number than any questions that affect individual members of the prospective wider class.

Although it would seem that the NCAA's rules about what athletes can receive for playing sports create an overriding common question, two of the named plaintiffs – former Connecticut basketball player Tate George and former Alabama football player Tyrone Prothro – said in depositions much earlier in the case that star players should be paid more than lesser players. That creates individual questions.

The plaintiffs countered with an expert who said that if the NCAA's restrictions on compensation for athletes were removed, the newly available pool of money from television rights and other licensing fees would be shared equally among all the athletes.

In Monday's filing, lawyers for the NCAA said new reports and recent depositions from another of the plaintiffs' experts show that if the NCAA's restrictions on compensation for athletes were removed, "only some – not all – licensing revenue would (be) shared equally and that the lion's share of such revenue would have been paid entirely to 'star' student-athletes." This would "reduce the pool of damages available to most of the class, thereby giving rise to conflicting incentives."

As a result, the NCAA's lawyers wrote, the plaintiffs' proposed class "cannot be certified."

[souljahbill]

What constitutes a star player?

[CLW]

NCAA makes new effort to stop O'Bannon class action bid

Lawyers representing the NCAA in an anti-trust lawsuit concerning the use of college athletes' names and likenesses on Monday filed documents describing new evidence that they argue is fatal to the plaintiffs' pending bid to have the case certified as a class action.

Currently the case involves former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon and two dozen other current and former college football and men's basketball players taking on the NCAA. However, if U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken grants class-action status, it could allow thousands of former and current football and men's basketball players to join the case, creating the possibility of a damages award in the billions of dollars.

First, though, Wilken must determine that the case meets criteria that are set under the federal rules of civil legal procedure. The criteria basically require that there be questions of law or fact that are common to the prospective wider class of plaintiffs and that those questions are greater in number than any questions that affect individual members of the prospective wider class.

Although it would seem that the NCAA's rules about what athletes can receive for playing sports create an overriding common question, two of the named plaintiffs – former Connecticut basketball player Tate George and former Alabama football player Tyrone Prothro – said in depositions much earlier in the case that star players should be paid more than lesser players. That creates individual questions.

The plaintiffs countered with an expert who said that if the NCAA's restrictions on compensation for athletes were removed, the newly available pool of money from television rights and other licensing fees would be shared equally among all the athletes.

In Monday's filing, lawyers for the NCAA said new reports and recent depositions from another of the plaintiffs' experts show that if the NCAA's restrictions on compensation for athletes were removed, "only some – not all – licensing revenue would (be) shared equally and that the lion's share of such revenue would have been paid entirely to 'star' student-athletes." This would "reduce the pool of damages available to most of the class, thereby giving rise to conflicting incentives."

As a result, the NCAA's lawyers wrote, the plaintiffs' proposed class "cannot be certified."

This is basically an argument/fight over the class certification. NCAA is trying to make a similar argument that the SCOTUS agreed with in Dukes v. Walmart (basically there are too many individualized questions for it to be a class action).

They will lose this argument at the trial court and 9th circuit. Basically, its just setting it up for a potential SCOTUS review.

[Rudy]

This is basically an argument/fight over the class certification. NCAA is trying to make a similar argument that the SCOTUS agreed with in Dukes v. Walmart (basically there are too many individualized questions for it to be a class action).

They will lose this argument at the trial court and 9th circuit. Basically, its just setting it up for a potential SCOTUS review.

You say SCOTUS, I hear scrotum lol.

[JBHuskers]

You say SCOTUS, I hear scrotum lol.

[CLW]

NCAA Lawsuit Settlement Cost EA $40 Million

EA's quarterly earnings report confirms how much the settlement amounted to.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/...-ea-40-million