On October 23, 2026, a trio of Division III competitors lodged a federal class-action in the Central District of California, accusing the NCAA of fixing the price of college athletic labor at zero. The complaint targets Bylaw 15.01.3, which explicitly bars member schools from awarding financial aid on the basis of “athletics leadership, ability, participation or performance.” By labeling the prohibition a price-fixing scheme, the plaintiffs seek treble damages under the Clayton Act for every athlete who competed in Division III after October 21, 2022, and they ask a judge to enjoin the rule entirely.
The three named plaintiffs are Jackson Hale, a senior defensive back at Pacific Lutheran University; Connor Printz, a former basketball player at Claremont McKenna College; and Chris Jennings, who swam and played lacrosse at the University of Lynchburg. Each contends that the scholarship ban forced them to shoulder the full cost of tuition, room, and board—often by taking on large loans—while they were simultaneously able to earn substantial name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals. Printz, for example, reportedly signed endorsement contracts worth up to $50,000 with brands such as Reebok and Clif Bar, yet he could not receive even a partial athletic scholarship to offset his $80,000 annual expenses.
What the complaint alleges
The filing argues that more than 400 schools in the NCAA’s largest division have entered a multiconference agreement to keep athletic aid at zero, effectively setting a market price for student-athlete labor. The plaintiffs describe this as an unlawful restriction of competition that directly contravenes federal antitrust law. Because Division III participants are allowed to receive need-based and merit aid, the suit emphasizes that the ban targets only the athletic component, creating a discriminatory discount that other divisions can now offer.
Plaintiffs’ personal stakes
Hale, a defensive back, relied on a combination of academic merit grants and personal savings to stay enrolled, while Jennings’ swim-lacrosse tenure coincided with a separate NCAA investigation that produced a $155,000 settlement over “improper” aid at Lynchburg. Although the settlement does not confirm that Jennings received the money, it underscores the murky financial landscape that the plaintiffs claim the NCAA’s rule perpetuates. Printz’s decision to abandon basketball midway through his senior year, opting instead for a burgeoning social-media business, is presented as a direct economic consequence of the scholarship prohibition.
Legal background and prior rulings
The case leans heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in NCAA v. Alston, which held that the organization’s limits on athlete benefits are subject to ordinary antitrust scrutiny. The Alston precedent unlocked the pathway for NIL agreements and later for the House v. NCAA settlement that permits Division I schools to pay athletes directly up to a $20.5 million cap per institution. By invoking Alston, the plaintiffs argue that the Division III ban fits the Court’s definition of a “multi-conference agreement” that restrains trade.
Earlier attempts to challenge the same rule were rebuffed. In 2013, a federal district court in Indiana dismissed the Division III claims in Rock v. NCAA, reasoning that the scholarship ban was “presumptively pro-competitive.” That decision predated both the Alston ruling and the modern NIL environment, leaving the plaintiffs convinced that the legal landscape has fundamentally shifted in their favor. The lawsuit is filed in the Ninth Circuit, the same jurisdiction that previously upheld the O’Bannon and Alston decisions, raising hopes that the court will view the scholarship prohibition through a more consumer-protective lens.
Potential ramifications for Division III programs and athletes
If the court certifies the class and awards treble damages, the financial exposure could run into the billions, given the roughly 210,000 athletes who compete in Division III each year. Even a modest per-athlete award would reshape budgeting priorities for schools that already operate on thin margins; the 2023-24 federal audit showed that 94 % of Division I programs spent more than they earned, and Division III institutions face similar fiscal pressures. Moreover, an injunction against Bylaw 15.01.3 would permit schools to offer athletic scholarships, but they would not be obligated to do so, leaving the actual availability of aid dependent on each college’s financial health.
For families of prospective Division III students, the lawsuit does not alter immediate aid packages, which continue to be composed of need-based grants and institutional merit awards. However, a successful challenge could eventually introduce a new tier of financial support that mirrors the NIL earnings now commonplace at higher divisions. The litigation is still in its early stages; the NCAA’s formal response is expected in the coming months, and a motion to dismiss will likely be the first substantive ruling. Given the complexity of antitrust litigation, a definitive resolution could take several years, potentially not arriving until the early 2030s.
