In this week’s Film Room, we cut through the noise and draw your attention to key takeaways from the House hearing, including a preview of what’s next.
We also bring you up to speed on an important update in the Schroeder (Title IX) case.
House – Hearing on Final Approval
As you all know, this past Monday, Judge Wilken held a hearing on Final Approval of the House settlement.
Judge Wilken began the hearing by noting the extensive submissions to date and indicating that she has reviewed all of them. The Court then heard from objectors and asked the parties to address areas of specific interest to the Court.
Her Honor did not issue a decision from the bench and directed the parties to consider comments from the Court and objectors before reporting back to the Court within a week—by Monday, April 14, 2025. The main substantive areas of discussion at the hearing included:
- Release of claims by future student-athletes. Judge Wilken asked for party positions on how future student-athletes can release claims—and otherwise be restricted by the terms of this settlement—without having an opportunity to object to it. In response, counsel noted cases arguably supporting the enforceability of such releases, including cases involving injunctions in the sports antitrust context. Counsel also acknowledged that future student-athletes could object to the injunctive terms of the settlement when they receive notice of the settlement (that is, at some later date when they become student-athletes). There was substantial dialogue on this item, and it is one of the areas on which the Court directed the parties to confer and report back.
- Third-party NIL restrictions. Judge Wilken noted that the proposed restrictions on Associated Entities/Individuals must be supported by a pro-competitive justification. Counsel argued that the settlement must be considered as a whole, and, within that context, the FMV restrictions on Associated Entities/Individuals make the pool cap effective and ensure a level playing field.
- Interplay between third-party NIL restrictions and state NIL laws. Judge Wilken noted objections identifying apparent conflicts between the enforcement of third-party NIL and state NIL laws. Counsel argued that to the extent such conflicts exist, they should not be a factor in whether the Court approves the settlement.
- Roster size reductions. Objecting lawyers argued that non-scholarship student-athletes/prospective student-athletes at risk of losing their spot on a team because of roster spot reductions are too distinct from scholarship student-athletes to be adequately represented as part of the settling class. Additionally, some of the most compelling statements in the hearing were offered by student-athletes and prospective student-athletes on this issue. Judge Wilken seemed troubled by the impact of roster spot reductions and asked whether those changes might be grandfathered in so as to not impact current student-athletes and prospective student-athletes. In response, counsel indicated the importance of set roster sizes. This is another area on which the parties are expected to report back to the Court.
- Damages distribution. Several objectors raised complaints with the proposed damages distribution. On more than one occasion, Judge Wilken noted that if the settlement isn’t approved, there will be no damages distribution at all.
- Title IX. Several objectors raised Title IX concerns, including in connection with the damages distribution. Judge Wilken noted that House is an antitrust case, not a Title IX case, and that the settlement does not release potential future Title IX claims.
At the end of the hearing, Judge Wilken indicated that she thinks this is a “good settlement” but then quickly cautioned the parties to not quote her. By this time next week, we’ll know the extent to which the parties are amenable to making changes to the settlement. Regardless, the prospective approval of the settlement is pushed a bit further out into the future.
Schroeder, et al. v. University of Oregon (Title IX)—Decision on Defendant UO Motions
On April 4, 2025, the Court issued an opinion addressing the University of Oregon’s motion to dismiss, motion for judgment on the pleadings, and motion for partial summary judgment in the Schroeder case. The Court denied UO’s requests except for granting the portion of its motion to dismiss that questioned the standing of certain plaintiffs who were not student-athletes at the time the complaint was filed.
Regarding plaintiffs’ noteworthy arguments regarding the application of Title IX to NIL, including third-party NIL, the Court permitted those claims to continue.
If this case follows typical procedures, next up would be discovery—document production, depositions, etc.—which can take months, if not years.
[View source.]
