Student-Athlete Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) Alert - California High School Athletes Bring Federal Class Action Lawsuit Seeking Rights to Performance and NIL Revenue Print PDF

On May 30, 2025, a former California high school football player (who now plays for Boise State) filed a federal class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against the California Interscholastic Federation (“CIF”) and various corporate media partners that offer software products and services for high school athletics.  The lawsuit, captioned Dominik Calhoun v. California Interscholastic Federation, et al., claims that CIF and these corporate media partners are unlawfully depriving California high school student-athletes of rightful performance and NIL-related revenues.  The lawsuit piggybacks on the claims underlying the House v. NCAA antitrust lawsuit (which, among other things, challenged the NCAA’s NIL rules and argued that student-athletes deserve back pay for their previous athletic contributions) and the historic $2.8 billion revenue sharing settlement of such action (which, coincidentally, still has not been finalized).

Background      

CIF is a nonprofit corporation and the authoritative body for high school sports in California. It is governed by the CIF Federated Council (the “Council”), which consists of high school superintendents, principals, athletic directors, teachers and other related organizations.  CIF member schools are organized into ten sections, and each section is broken down into multiple leagues.  The Council has authority to establish and enforce the rules of eligibility for participation in athletic contents among its schools, as well as penalties for violations of the rules.

The corporate media partners offer software products and services that include athletic website design, broadcasting and streaming, coaching tools and analytics, digital ticketing, fundraising, schedules, statistics and scores, and sponsorships. These partners earn profits by earning subscription fees and taking a portion of the revenues generated from these products and services (including advertising and sponsorship revenues).

Class Action Lawsuit

The lawsuit claims that the anticompetitive conduct of CIF and the corporate media partners have unfairly and unlawfully deprived California high school student-athletes of the opportunity to receive a fair share of the value they create.  Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that:

• CIF, its member schools, and the corporate media partners “generate substantial revenues through the commercial exploitation of student-athletes’ athletic performances [and NIL], including via broadcasting rights, streaming services, sponsorships, advertising, ticketing, and merchandise sales. They also profit from the many hours of athletic labor supplied by their student-athletes”;
• At the same time, however, these entities provide no compensation to the student-athletes, and for the most part they prohibit the student-athletes from receiving compensation associated with such activities. While student-athletes can profit from their NIL, the existing restrictions severely limit the student-athletes’ earning potential, including the following restrictions:  (1) schools cannot share revenue directly with student-athletes; (2) booster clubs cannot form collectives; (3) student-athlete earning activities cannot be made on school property; and (4) the student-athletes cannot appear in uniform or school attire and cannot make use of the school or team name or other trademarks;
• Student-athletes are forbidden from receiving financial rewards for their athletic performance and from transferring between member schools for athletic reasons;
• These rules are mandatory and student-athletes who do not comply may face severe penalties;
• As a result, the student-athletes are foreclosed from participating in a competitive market for their athletic labor; and
• These policies harm the student-athletes who create the economic value exploited by the defendants and constitute unreasonable restraints of trade in violation of various federal and state laws.

What Happens Next?

We think it is unlikely that this case will go away quietly, and student-athletes and organizations (and attorneys) in states with similar NIL restrictions will likely be following the matter closely. While most of the defendants have not yet commented on the case, they will likely strongly push back against the claims.  It may be an uphill battle for the student-athletes with respect to removing the restrictions on transferring schools for athletic reasons, given the amateurism argument (and the fact that most student-athletes are minors).  However, the NCAA settlement is valued at nearly $2.8 billion, and the estimated value of the NCAA NIL market in 2025 alone is expected to be over $2.5 billion. While there are generally very few NIL earning opportunities for the vast majority of high school athletes, several experts believe that the annual value of the high school sports NIL market is several times that of the NCAA.  Given this value and the notoriety of the NCAA class action and its historic settlement, we would not be surprised if this case also ended with a settlement that removes the NIL restrictions on California high school student-athletes, and potentially includes a revenue sharing plan going forward.

The foregoing information is provided only for general reference. It does not constitute legal advice.  Legal advice may be provided based only on specific facts.  Please consult us before relying on any general information stated herein.  We are happy to discuss any questions you may have.