Marshall v. Nat'l Football League, No. 13-3581 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseA class action complaint alleged that for many years the commercial filmmaking wing of the NFL used the names, images, likenesses, and identities of former NFL players in videos to generate revenue and promote the NFL. It asserted claims for false endorsement (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125), common law and statutory rights of publicity claims under several states' laws, and unjust enrichment. The court approved a settlement calling for: creation of the Common Good Entity, a non-profit organization; payment of up to $42 million to the Common Good Entity over eight years; establishment of the Licensing Agency; payment of $100,000 worth of media value to the Licensing Agency each year until 2021; (5) Payment of attorneys' fees and settlement administration expenses; a reserve for the NFL's potential fees and costs involving class members who opt out; and class members' perpetual release of claims and publicity rights for the NFL and related entities to use. The Common Good Entity is "dedicated to supporting and promoting the health and welfare of Retired Players and other similarly situated individuals." Six players (the class had about 25,000 members) objected. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate despite not providing for a direct financial payment to each class member.
Court Description: Bye, Author, with Smith and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Sports law. In this class-action, nearly 25,000 former NFL players sued the NFL alleging that NFL Films, the commercial film-making wing of the league, had used their likenesses in a variety of videos in violation of their publicity rights; following extensive negotiations, the parties reached a settlement which creates a licensing agency to assist former players in marketing their publicity rights and establishes up to a $42 million payout to members of the class. Here, six former players challenged the settlement on the grounds that it did not provide for direct payouts to former players and was not fair, reasonable and adequate. Held, the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement as it provides a direct benefit to all class members and was fair and reasonable considering the complexity and expense of further litigation, the limited amount of opposition and the merits of the plaintiffs' case. Judge Smith, concurring.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.