Tag: lawsuit

*UPDATE: On Monday, August 20, Judge Richard Boulware set a trial date on February 3, 2025, for the UFC antitrust lawsuit filed against the promotion by fighters such as Cung Le and Nate Quarry. The date won’t be adjusted unless the judge approves a new preliminary settlement.

Original article published on July 31, 2024.

After being placed on hold earlier this month, the settlement given out by TKO Holdings Group, the parent company of the UFC, in a pair of class-action lawsuits against the MMA promotion have now been rejected by the judge, resulting in the scheduling of a jury trial.

Josh Gross, who has covered MMA since 2000 for a number of outlets, including ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and The Athletic, was present in the courtroom when Judge Richard F. Boulware, district judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, came down with his decision not to grant preliminary approval for the settlement on July 12.

“Judge Boulware did not grant preliminary approval for the UFC class-action antitrust settlement today. I was in the courtroom this afternoon. Boulware expressed several areas of concern and it sure seemed to me that he’s leaning toward denying the deal and moving to a jury trial.”

Though it’s rare to hear about in settlements like this one, Gross mentioned that Judge Boulware was leaning toward a complete shutdown of the agreed-upon settlement, potentially bringing the UFC antitrust case to a jury trial after all.

That came to fruition on Tuesday night, with the judge officially rejecting the settlement and ordering the Le suit back to trial on October 28, 2024. A status conference will comes beforehand on August 19.

Jury Trial Expected For UFC Antitrust Lawsuit After Judge Does Not Approve $335 Million Settlement

In March, TKO agreed to a $335 million payout to settle a pair of antitrust lawsuits, representing more than 1,200 fighters, brought against the UFC. One, [Cung] Le et al. vs. Zuffa, centered around fighters who competed in the UFC between Dec. 16, 2010, and June 30, 2017. The other, [Kajan] Johnson et al. vs. Zuffa, represented fighters competing from July 1, 2017, through 2021.

The plaintiffs had initially sought approximately $1.6 billion in damages.

In his thread, Gross outlined the issues Judge Boulware had with the settlement. One of these is the gap between the amount agreed upon in the settlement and what the fighters had initially sought. Gross noted that “Boulware addressed the amount of money awarded to fighters in the settlement and how it is being distributed, especially compared to what fighters could win at trial with treble damages.”

Additionally, Judge Boulware has taken issue with the settlement when looking at the attentions of the different lawsuits. The Le fighters are more focused on their settlement, while the Johnson fighters on injunctive relief (in other words, as Gross notes, changes in contracts and protections that would allow more freedoms for fighters).

While Boulware acknowledged a lack of wrongdoing on behalf of the legal counsel representing the fighters, he did note that the current settlement does little for those fighters represented in the Johnson class-action suit.

Paul Gift of Forbes noted last month that Judge Boulware had “serious concerns” about the settlement. He also noted that the plaintiffs claimed the UFC would only settle both class-action cases simultaneously.

Legal expert Michael McCann of Sportico has suggested the UFC and attorneys for the Le case could strike a separate deal, while the Johnson case — which is in a much earlier phase of litigation — remains in court.

The UFC released a statement on Wednesday, expressing disappointment and disagreement with the judge’s ruling.

Continue Reading Judge Sets Trial Date For UFC Antitrust Lawsuit After Rejecting Settlement at MMA News.