NEW YORK – In a remarkable display of unity, a bipartisan coalition of the attorneys general for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Troutman Pepper Locke and Dominion Energy’s petition for extraordinary relief in the matter of Yoon v. Collins, which continues the fight for veterans’ denied educational benefits.
Anticompetitive conduct remains a priority for state attorneys general (AGs), as evidenced by a preliminary settlement between the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) and an 11-state coalition of AGs, including Virginia, Colorado, District of Columbia, Illinois, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia recently entered. Notably, the U.S. Department of Justice also signed the proposed settlement agreement. Filed in the Northern District of West Virginia, the antitrust lawsuit challenged the NCAA’s transfer eligibility rule. The proposed settlement agreement is subject to approval by U.S. District Judge John Bailey, who previously granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the NCAA from enforcing the transfer rule during the spring sports season.
On Wednesday, attorneys general (AG) for the states of Florida, New York, and the District of Columbia announced that they are joining Tennessee and Virginia in a multistate coalition challenging the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) “Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL)-recruiting ban.” Troutman Pepper previously reported on the lawsuit after the District Court entered a preliminary injunction order in February.
In a recent ruling, the California Court of Appeal largely affirmed a lower court’s decision from March 2022, finding that Ashford University (now known as University of Arizona Global Campus), an online, for-profit college, had engaged in deceptive recruitment practices vis-à-vis veterans eligible for federal GI Bill educational benefits. California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta initiated the action in November 2017, alleging that Ashford University had caused harm to a significant number of students, many of whom were veterans, by disseminating false and misleading statements about career outcomes, cost and financial aid, pace of degree programs, and transfer credits.
On February 23, U.S. District Judge Clifton L. Corker of the Eastern District of Tennessee granted a preliminary injunction requested by the Tennessee and Virginia attorneys generals (AG) against the NCAA’s “NIL-recruiting ban.” This ban prohibits boosters and collectives from discussing name, image, and likeness (NIL) opportunities with student-athletes before they commit to a school. The court found that the AGs had established both a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm that would occur without the injunction. This decision could have significant implications for the landscape of college sports.
On February 23, U.S. District Judge Clifton L. Corker of the Eastern District of Tennessee, issued an opinion and order granting the Tennessee and Virginia attorneys generals’ (AG) request for a preliminary injunction enjoining the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) from enforcing its so-called “NIL-recruiting ban,” i.e., the current NCAA guidance that prohibits boosters and collectives from communicating with student-athletes about name, image, and likeness (NIL) opportunities before they commit to a particular school. The court found the AGs had established both a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm that would occur absent imposition of the preliminary injunction. By granting the preliminary injunction, the court has set off a series of events that are sure to have wide-ranging implications both on the near- and long-term landscape of college sports.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently issued a report, focused on the current student loan servicing market that laid out the results of several supervisory efforts related to student lending. Higher education lenders and loan servicers should pay close attention to the report’s findings, which signal the CFPB’s interest in enforcing the Consumer