Court Approves Settlement of Suit Over NFL Players Publicity Rights

A federal judge in Minnesota signed off on a hotly contested $50 million settlement between the National Football League and former players who said the league infringed their publicity rights. The ruling was a blow to a group of plaintiffs' lawyers who lodged objections to the deal, calling it inadequate.

U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson in St. Paul granted final approval of the settlement, calling it fair and reasonable. Dryer v. National Football League, 09-2182. The district judge wrote that it would have been difficult for the plaintiffs to prevail on the merits, so it's a “remarkable victory” that they were able to get concessions from the NFL valued at $50 million. But Magnuson didn't rule on a request by plaintiffs' lawyers for $7.7 million in attorney fees, delegating that issue to a magistrate judge.

Six retired football players sued the NFL in 2009, alleging that it hadn't compensated them for the unauthorized use of their images in films and other merchandise. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of about roughly 25,000 former players. In 2011, Magnuson awarded the role of co-lead plaintiffs counsel to Hausfeld LLP, Zimmerman Reed, and Minneapolis-based solo practitioner Robert Stein (a former NFL player).

Settlement Terms

Under the terms of the settlement deal, first announced in March 2013, the NFL will establish a $42 million trust for former players. The trust will be used to fund health care costs and support medical research into the effects of football injuries. The NFL will also pay $8 million to cover various costs, including the establishment of an independent licensing company that can help former players profit from future commercial uses of their images.

During settlement discussions, a schism developed between plaintiffs' lawyers on the case, as reported in a blog by Reuters' Alison Frankel. See, “Retired NFL Stars Reject Settlement of Their Own Licensing Class Action.” Some plaintiffs' lawyers, including Stein and former Hausfeld attorney Jon King, argued that the proposed settlement didn't guarantee players a tangible payout. These lawyers also said they couldn't assess the fairness of the deal without further discovery into the NFL's profits. After the settlement was announced, the objectors convinced more than 2,000 of the roughly 25,000 class members to opt out, including the first six named plaintiffs.

District Judge Magnuson's settlement-approval ruling rejected the notion that the plaintiffs were getting a raw deal. “The vast majority of class members see the settlement at issue here for what it is: a boon to those thousands upon thousands of former NFL players who can now reap the collective benefit of a large financial payout to a fund organized solely for their benefit,” he wrote. “The continued complaints from those opposing the settlement that they are receiving no direct personal benefit therefore only highlights the extent to which they have strayed from their initial goal of providing for this less fortunate.”

There's been some bad blood between King, one of the objecting attorneys, and Hausfeld's Michael Hausfeld, who supported the settlement. King filed a wrongful termination complaint against Hausfeld LLP in January, alleging that the firm fired him for exposing ethical lapses by Michael Hausfeld and other firm partners. Siding with Hausfeld, a judge ruled that King had to arbitrate his grievances.

In a press release, King (now of Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro) pointed out that District Judge Magnuson lifted an injunction that temporarily blocked the opt-out plaintiffs for pursuing their own cases. “Although the judge disagreed with the opposing voices on the fairness of the settlement, the excellent news is that players who have opted out of the settlement will now have their day in court in a separate case,” King said.

Debvoise & Plimpton and partner Bruce Keller, as well as Faegre Baker Daniels represented the NFL.

[Editor's Note: In a separate antitrust case by student players challenging the National Collegiate Athletic Association's name-and-likeness rules, U.S. District Chief Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California has granted the plaintiffs class certification to seek injunctive relief, but denied certification to a sub-class that wants monetary damages. In Re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing, 09-1967.]

Jan Wolfe writes for The American Lawyer, an ALM sibling of Entertainment Law & Finance.

A federal judge in Minnesota signed off on a hotly contested $50 million settlement between the National Football League and former players who said the league infringed their publicity rights. The ruling was a blow to a group of plaintiffs' lawyers who lodged objections to the deal, calling it inadequate.

U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson in St. Paul granted final approval of the settlement, calling it fair and reasonable. Dryer v. National Football League, 09-2182. The district judge wrote that it would have been difficult for the plaintiffs to prevail on the merits, so it's a “remarkable victory” that they were able to get concessions from the NFL valued at $50 million. But Magnuson didn't rule on a request by plaintiffs' lawyers for $7.7 million in attorney fees, delegating that issue to a magistrate judge.

Six retired football players sued the NFL in 2009, alleging that it hadn't compensated them for the unauthorized use of their images in films and other merchandise. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of about roughly 25,000 former players. In 2011, Magnuson awarded the role of co-lead plaintiffs counsel to Hausfeld LLP, Zimmerman Reed, and Minneapolis-based solo practitioner Robert Stein (a former NFL player).

Settlement Terms

Under the terms of the settlement deal, first announced in March 2013, the NFL will establish a $42 million trust for former players. The trust will be used to fund health care costs and support medical research into the effects of football injuries. The NFL will also pay $8 million to cover various costs, including the establishment of an independent licensing company that can help former players profit from future commercial uses of their images.

During settlement discussions, a schism developed between plaintiffs' lawyers on the case, as reported in a blog by Reuters' Alison Frankel. See, “Retired NFL Stars Reject Settlement of Their Own Licensing Class Action.” Some plaintiffs' lawyers, including Stein and former Hausfeld attorney Jon King, argued that the proposed settlement didn't guarantee players a tangible payout. These lawyers also said they couldn't assess the fairness of the deal without further discovery into the NFL's profits. After the settlement was announced, the objectors convinced more than 2,000 of the roughly 25,000 class members to opt out, including the first six named plaintiffs.

District Judge Magnuson's settlement-approval ruling rejected the notion that the plaintiffs were getting a raw deal. “The vast majority of class members see the settlement at issue here for what it is: a boon to those thousands upon thousands of former NFL players who can now reap the collective benefit of a large financial payout to a fund organized solely for their benefit,” he wrote. “The continued complaints from those opposing the settlement that they are receiving no direct personal benefit therefore only highlights the extent to which they have strayed from their initial goal of providing for this less fortunate.”

There's been some bad blood between King, one of the objecting attorneys, and Hausfeld's Michael Hausfeld, who supported the settlement. King filed a wrongful termination complaint against Hausfeld LLP in January, alleging that the firm fired him for exposing ethical lapses by Michael Hausfeld and other firm partners. Siding with Hausfeld, a judge ruled that King had to arbitrate his grievances.

In a press release, King (now of Hagens Berman Sobol & Shapiro) pointed out that District Judge Magnuson lifted an injunction that temporarily blocked the opt-out plaintiffs for pursuing their own cases. “Although the judge disagreed with the opposing voices on the fairness of the settlement, the excellent news is that players who have opted out of the settlement will now have their day in court in a separate case,” King said.

Debvoise & Plimpton and partner Bruce Keller, as well as Faegre Baker Daniels represented the NFL.

[Editor's Note: In a separate antitrust case by student players challenging the National Collegiate Athletic Association's name-and-likeness rules, U.S. District Chief Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California has granted the plaintiffs class certification to seek injunctive relief, but denied certification to a sub-class that wants monetary damages. In Re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing, 09-1967.]

Jan Wolfe writes for The American Lawyer, an ALM sibling of Entertainment Law & Finance.