In June, Judge Claudia Wilken of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved an unprecedented $2.8 billion settlement in the class action antitrust lawsuit House v. NCAA, a major development in NCAA antitrust litigation and ongoing debates about student-athlete compensation. The House v. NCAA settlement marked a clear departure from amateurism in collegiate athletics by allowing schools to share athletics revenue with student athletes and awarding back pay to certain student athletes for name, image, and likeness (NIL) earnings.
As we wrote previously, plaintiff class members began to levy Title IX-based challenges to the settlement almost immediately. Since then, plaintiff-objectors have continued to argue that the settlement runs afoul of Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination. As challenges proceed through the courts, there is significant uncertainty regarding the implications of Title IX in college sports for direct pay, revenue sharing, and NIL earnings.
What Title IX Challenges Are Pending in the Ninth Circuit?
Only five days after Wilken approved the House settlement, a group of eight female student-athlete plaintiffs noticed an appeal of the settlement’s back-pay provision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Other appeals from similar groups swiftly followed. Today, there are three consolidated appeals pending before the Ninth Circuit that raise Title IX objections to the settlement. The various appellants filed opening briefs in late October. In sum, each brief advanced the following primary arguments.
Disproportionate Compensation
Appellants argue that the settlement violates Title IX because it fails to provide athletics-based financial assistance to male and female athletes proportionately. According to appellants, over 90% of the settlement fund is allocated to male football and basketball athletes and therefore constitutes discrimination against female athletes based on sex.
Flawed Damages Allocation
Appellants argue that the district court erred in approving the settlement’s damages calculation because that calculation was based on “fundamentally flawed” logic that did not consider or apply Title IX. To appellants, because schools rather than athletic conferences would be the ones paying damages, the calculation must include consideration of Title IX.
Procedural Defects
Appellants also briefed various procedural arguments. For example, one group of plaintiff-objectors argues that the district court failed to adequately consider their objections at the time of approval. Another group argues that class counsel failed to adequately represent them, because of both conflicts of interest and class counsel’s instruction to exclude consideration of Title IX from the damages calculation.
Reply briefs are currently due in January 2026, and oral argument is expected to follow. Class counsel will likely argue that Title IX is outside the scope of the settlement, which arose out of an antitrust case and not an antidiscrimination case.
At a minimum, the Ninth Circuit will need to decide whether Wilken abused her discretion in approving the settlement. However, it may also choose to address the larger questions of whether Title IX applies in the context of NIL and direct payments to student athletes and whether the settlement itself constitutes prohibited discrimination under Title IX.
These appeals triggered an automatic stay on all back-pay damages, but did not halt any go-forward revenue sharing provisions in the settlement. If successful, these appeals could lead to a restructuring of the settlement’s damages calculation to comply with Title IX’s proportionality requirements.
How Did Judge Wilken Respond to Post-Approval Title IX Objections?
As appeals make their way through the Ninth Circuit, several class members have written directly to Judge Wilken to raise post-approval settlement objections. The parties who are objecting argue, in line with the Ninth Circuit appellants, that the settlement causes schools to share revenue disproportionately between men’s sports and women’s sports and in turn violate their Title IX obligation to ensure equitable opportunities for both men’s and women’s sports programs.
On November 6, 2025, Wilken held a fairness hearing on these post-settlement objections. A week later, on November 13, she issued an order overruling the objections. Wilken reasoned that the court does not have the authority to modify the settlement itself but acknowledged that class members are free to bring separate Title IX lawsuits because “such claims were not released as part of the [settlement agreement].” This move aligns with her pre-approval stance and raises the question of whether objectors will take this approach going forward.
Key Takeaways
The future of Title IX’s applicability in the context of direct pay to student athletes, revenue sharing, and NIL deals remains unclear. While we expect the Northern District of California to continue to overrule any Title IX-based objections, it’s possible that the Ninth Circuit will take a different approach. Any college or university with an athletic program should closely monitor developments in federal and state law in this space. Venable is continuing to do so and remains available to provide guidance.
Colleges or universities with questions regarding Title IX, labor issues and employment of student athletes, or NIL rights and contracts are encouraged to contact the authors of this article or any attorney in Venable’s Sports Law Group.