Hicks v. PGA Tour, Inc., No. 16-15370 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseProfessional golf caddies filed suit against the PGA Tour after it required them to wear bibs containing advertisements at professional golfing events. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims with prejudice, holding that the caddies consented to wearing the bibs and that they did not do so under economic duress. Therefore, the caddies failed to state claims for breach of contract and quasi-contract relief, California state law publicity claims, a Lanham Act false endorsement claim, or a plausible economic duress claim. The panel also held that the caddies failed to allege plausibly that the Tour secured their consent through economic duress, and thus the district court properly dismissed the antitrust claims for failure to state a relevant market and the California unfair competition claims for failure to plead that any of the Tour's conduct was unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent. The panel remanded to allow the district court to reconsider whether to grant the caddies leave to amend their federal antitrust and California unfair competition claims.
Court Description: Antitrust. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s dismissal of antitrust and related state law claims of professional golf caddies who participate in golf tournaments run by the PGA Tour, arising out of the Tour’s requirement that the caddies wear bibs containing advertisements at professional golfing events. The panel held that the district court was not required to convert the Tour’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss to a summary judgment motion because the court did not consider any material outside the pleadings. The panel held that the district court properly concluded that the caddies had consented to wearing the bibs, based on the text of a tournament participation form, considered with the caddies’ concession that the Tour had required them to 6 HICKS V. PGA TOUR wear bibs for decades. The district court also did not err in concluding that the caddies failed to allege plausibly that the Tour secured their consent through economic duress. The caddies therefore failed to state claims for breach of contract and quasi-contract relief, California state law publicity claims, a Lanham Act false endorsement claim, or a plausible economic duress claim. The panel held that the district court properly determined that the caddies had not alleged plausible product markets to support their antitrust claims. The panel held that, even if advertisements to golf fans constituted a unique product market, “in-play” or “in-action” advertising during professional golf tournaments—either in any format or endorsements alone—did not constitute a unique submarket. Agreeing with other circuits, the panel concluded that the caddies’ proposed product markets were facially unsustainable because they failed to include many reasonably interchangeable products. The panel held that the district court therefore correctly dismissed the caddies’ antitrust claims, as well as their California unfair competition claim. The panel, however, vacated the dismissal with prejudice of these claims because the district court made a simple denial of leave to amend without adequate explanation. The panel remanded for the district court to reconsider its decision to deny the caddies leave to amend the antitrust and unfair competition claims. HICKS V. PGA TOUR 7
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.