On November 13, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, who oversees the House v. NCAA settlement, overruled objections to the Injunctive Relief Settlement (IRS) filed by seven student-athletes.[1] Judge Wilken held a fairness hearing during which she heard from the objectors who raised several arguments around Title IX, roster limits, nonrevenue generating sports, inadequate representation by class counsel, and insufficient notice.
The settlement agreement allows for “all incoming members of the Injunctive Relief Settlement Class at or before the time they first enroll at a Division I member school or later join, for the first time, a Division I member school athletic team” the right to file written objections to the IRS.[2]
Title IX Violations
As part of the settlement, schools are permitted (but not required) to share up to 22% of their athletic revenue with their student-athletes. The objectors, however, argued that the settlement has effectively induced schools to distribute this revenue disproportionately, favoring men’s sports over women’s sports, violating Title IX’s prohibition on sex-based discrimination in education programs. Judge Wilken overruled this (and similar) objections, citing the court’s inability to modify the settlement or its provisions. The objectors, she stated, have the right to file separate lawsuits “arising out of such violations given that such claims were not released as part of the [settlement agreement].”[3]
Inadequate Class Representation and Notice
Objectors also argued that the class members were not represented adequately by the class because the named class members are not current NCAA student-athletes, and they raised concerns about future Division I athletes and proper notice.
Judge Wilken rejected the objection that class members were not adequately represented, finding that the class members all share the common interest of securing a competitive market for the labor of Division I athletes, and pushed to ensure adequate compensation.[4] Judge Wilken also overruled the objection that future athletes have been given inadequate notice, stating that the settlement was to provide notice of the IRS — primarily the revenue-sharing portion — every year to the incoming class of Division I athletes. Judge Wilken recognized the impracticality of having to notify future Division I athletes of the settlement, and held the fact that notice will not be disseminated at this time for future Division I student-athletes does not render the notice program noncompliant with Rule 23 or due process.[5]
Nonrevenue Generating Sports
Lastly, several objectors claimed that the IRS forces schools to defund or eliminate nonrevenue generating sports. Judge Wilken also overruled this objection as the IRS does not require schools to cut programs or to allocate its financial resources to a specific sport or team. Schools, she noted, are free to work within the parameters of the IRS as they see fit.[6]
The settlement agreement and IRS remain in effect without modification for the 2025-26 academic year. The court’s order also requires plaintiffs to file a proposed form of notice and proposed mechanism to disseminate the form of notice to the Injunctive Relief Class for the 2026-27 academic year by June 29, 2026.
[1] See generally Daniel Libit, House v. NCAA Settlement Survives Latest Title IX Objections, Sportico (Nov. 13, 2025), House v. NCAA Settlement Glides Past Latest Title IX Objections.
[2] Order Overruling Objections to the Injunctive Relief Settlement, In Re: College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 20-cv-03919-CW, ECF No. 1071 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025).
[3] Order Overruling Objections to the Injunctive Relief Settlement, In Re: College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 20-cv-03919-CW, ECF No. 1071 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025).
[4] Order Overruling Objections to the Injunctive Relief Settlement, In Re: College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 20-cv-03919-CW, ECF No. 1071 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025).
[5] Order Overruling Objections to the Injunctive Relief Settlement, In Re: College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 20-cv-03919-CW, ECF No. 1071 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025).
[6] Order Overruling Objections to the Injunctive Relief Settlement, In Re: College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 20-cv-03919-CW, ECF No. 1071 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025).
