In a dramatic courtroom showdown that blurred the lines between justice and gridiron politics, a California federal judge slammed the brakes on the NCAA’s $2.78 billion name, image, and likeness (NIL) settlement, ordering attorneys to return in a week with solutions to a chorus of athlete objections — including those voiced by former NFL linebacker Benjamin Burr-Kirven and LSU gymnastics superstar and influencer Olivia Dunne.

At the heart of this legal juggernaut is a sprawling, decade-long proposed settlement that aims to resolve two sweeping antitrust class actions against the NCAA. But with legal landmines and emotional testimony, the deal’s path to approval is now anything but certain.

From Settlement to Scrutiny

During a grueling six-hour hearing in Oakland, U.S. District Judge Claudia Ann Wilken refrained from granting final approval to the settlement, citing unresolved concerns raised by both high-profile and lesser-known athletes.

"Think about what you can do with all of these issues," Judge Wilken told the attorneys, hinting at a path forward but warning that "some of these things could be fixed."

Out of the 390,000 potential class members, only 343 opted out, but 73 athletes filed formal objections, with another 88,104 already submitting claims. The judge called this a "surprisingly high" response rate in such a massive class action — a signal that the athlete community is engaged and uneasy.

A Deal Under Fire: What Athletes Are Saying

Objections poured in from all angles, with athletes targeting everything from vague language to unfair payout structures and alleged Title IX violations. Dunne and Burr-Kirven were among the most vocal critics.

Olivia Dunne: “Flawed and Unclear”

Dunne, one of the highest-earning student-athletes with over 13 million followers, claimed that her damages payout was based on incomplete data submitted by LSU. After filing her claim, she discovered she was locked into the deal, which she likened to a "contract of adhesion."

Burr-Kirven: “Cryptic Black Box”

Former Seattle Seahawk Benjamin Burr-Kirven lambasted the formula used to determine payouts as "completely illogical" and “cryptic.” He claimed special teams players with minimal impact were receiving five times more than full-time starters like himself — an error he said couldn’t be explained or appealed.

He described a Kafkaesque experience where attempts to contact the claims administrator went unanswered, leaving him and others in a payout purgatory.

Others Speak Out

Athletes Gannon Flynn and Gracelyn Laudermilch raised alarms over team roster cuts and revoked scholarships they say were a direct consequence of the settlement's terms. Laudermilch claimed she lost a promised track-and-field spot after accepting it — a move she tied to the school's response to the looming deal.

Legal Teams Hold the Line

Despite the uproar, class counsel Steve W. Berman and Jeffrey L. Kessler defended the deal as both fair and necessary given the risks of ongoing litigation and looming Congressional intervention. Berman noted that over 30% of the class had already filed claims, a promising sign of legitimacy.

"If this settlement is not approved, it could all go away," Berman warned, referencing proposed legislation that could give the NCAA antitrust immunity.

Kessler emphasized that the $200 million Hubbard deal reflects nearly 64% of actual damages, and that no future damages are being waived — a point that could quiet some critics.

Judge Weighs Next Moves

While Judge Wilken appeared skeptical of some objections, particularly those tied to Title IX, she also expressed doubt that athletes not yet born or currently underage — included as “future” class members — could be legally bound to the agreement.

She floated the idea of annual judicial oversight for the next decade to allow objections from new class members, a concept Kessler agreed to explore further.

Wilken also suggested she might approve the Hubbard deal independently but noted that NCAA counsel Rakesh N. Kilaru insisted both parts must be approved as a package.

Settlement on Shaky Ground

In the end, Judge Wilken took the matter under submission, giving attorneys one week to return with solutions to what she described as a fundamentally “worth pursuing” settlement — if they can mend its most contentious flaws.