LSU gymnast Livvy Dunne files objection to House v. NCAA settlement ahead of deadline

LSU gymnast Livvy Dunne has filed an objection to the House v. NCAA settlement. She did so ahead of Friday’s deadline.

In the filing, Dunne noted “major deficiencies with the structure” of the settlement, which is set to usher in the revenue-sharing era in college athletics if approved by Judge Claudia Wilken. She specifically pointed out issues with transparency, legal fees and the fact athletes weren’t involved in the discussions about the landmark settlement.

Dunne is one of the most notable athletes to file an objection to the House settlement. A star gymnast, she’s also a pioneer in the NIL space and has a $4.2 million On3 NIL Valuation.

And here's a letter objecting to the House settlement filed by LSU gymnast Olivia Dunne. pic.twitter.com/t5gpLrIedj

— Sam C. Ehrlich (@samcehrlich) January 31, 2025

“There is a lack of transparency to how the calculations being made for the estimate of lost NIL opportunities and if the same formula is being applied to all athletes across every sport,” the filing states. “If I were to hire a law firm to represent me individually in this matter I would want to know how the valuation of damages was calculated specifically to me. This seems not to be the case.

“Especially in a case where the school provided no NIL data, athletes could not upload their own data to adjust and correct their estimate without filing a claim and waiving their right to opt out of the damages class. This left the athlete to make a decision without accurate information.”

In addition to kicking off the revenue-sharing era in college athletics with a $20.5 million cap in Year 1, the House v. NCAA settlement calls for NIL deals worth more than $600 to be approved by a clearinghouse that will vet contracts. Dunne also objected to that part of the agreement, citing confidentiality issues.

“Submissions of itemized NIL deals need to be sealed,” the filing states. “Third party companies that partner with athletes are not parties to this suit. Forcing athletes to disclose deal information would violate non-disclosure, confidentiality and trade secret covenants.”

DOJ weighed in on House settlement before inauguration

The House v. NCAA settlement received preliminary approval in October. The motion for final approval is on March 3, 2025, and the final approval hearing is scheduled for April 7, 2025. It will be held remotely and in person.

But key questions continued to swirl around the agreement even after its preliminary approval. The Department of Justice weighed in earlier this month, though it occurred before President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

The DOJ filed a statement of interest Jan. 17, taking issue with the settlement setting a cap on revenue sharing. In the 11-page filing, the DOJ said that the settlement “may not ‘cure the ill effects of the illegal conduct.’” Instead, the DOJ believes that the “Proposed Settlement allows the NCAA, an adjudicated monopsonist, to continue fixing the amount its member schools can pay students for the use of their name, image, and likeness.”

That statement of interest came one day after the DOJ issued Title IX guidance stating future revenue distributions from an institution to an athlete for NIL rights are classified as “financial assistance.” If not proportionally divided, schools would risk violating Title IX.

Pete Nakos contributed.