Marshall v. National Football League, 787 F.3d 502

Background

Six former NFL players sue the NFL over use of their names, images, and likenesses in NFL Films videos.
The case culminates in a complex class-action settlement creating two main benefits: a Licensing Agency for players’ publicity rights and up to $42 million paid by the NFL to a Common Good Entity over eight years to benefit the class.
The Common Good Entity distributes funds to charitable or health-and-welfare organizations per defined categories; remaining funds revert to the NFL after ten years and up to $13.5 million may be deducted for opt-out litigation costs.
A Licensing Agency, assisted by IMG, enables players to license their publicity rights; 75% of licensing proceeds go to each respective class member, with the remainder benefiting the Common Good Entity as designated by the settlement.
The district court preliminarily approved the settlement and certified the class; after notice and objections, final approval was granted over objections and a small opt-out rate.
Appellants challenge the lack of direct per-member cash payouts and argue the structure could be a cy pres distribution; the district court and the panel conclude the arrangement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate despite no direct cash payout to each member	Gastineau/Salaam argue no direct benefit to the class and reliance on a third party fails fairness.	The Licensing Agency and $42M fund provide substantial, direct class benefits beyond cash to individuals.	Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Whether paying proceeds to a third-party Common Good Entity renders the settlement impermissible	Payment to a third party could be cy pres and improper.	Funds designated for class benefit; not a cy pres; administration benefits class.	Not a cy pres distribution; permissible structure that benefits the class.
Whether the district court properly applied the four-factor test to approve the settlement	May contend the court failed to adequately value or scrutinize risks.	Court properly weighed the four factors including the strength of the case, financial condition, litigation complexity, and opposition.	District court did not abuse its discretion; factors support approval.
Whether the district court was required to provide a precise monetary value for the class claims and compare it to the settlement	Argues for a specific valuation per claim or per member.	Not required to provide exact per-claim values; aggregate assessment suffices.	No, a precise per-claim monetary valuation was not required; aggregate assessment permitted.
Whether the Licensing Agency and $42 million payout provide sufficient value to the class	Question whether license opportunities and proceeds are adequate compensation.	Licensing Agency and the $42 million fund deliver meaningful, direct benefits and efficiencies for class members.	Yes, the terms provide substantial value to the class and support approval.

Key Cases Cited

Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir.2012) (cy pres concerns and valuation not required to be precise for settlement approval)
In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 396 F.3d 922 (8th Cir.2005) (settlement review deference; private contract; four-factor test)
In re BankAmerica Corp. Sec. Litig., 775 F.3d 1060 (8th Cir.2015) (cy pres standards; unclaimed funds; propriety of distribution)
In re Uponor, Inc. F1807 Plumbing Fittings Prods. Liab. Litig., 716 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir.2013) (four-factor framework for evaluating settlements)
Van Horn v. Trickey, 840 F.2d 604 (8th Cir.1988) (deference to district court’s settlement approval; presumption of validity)
In re Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., 629 F.3d 333 (3d Cir.2010) (valuing class claims in settlement context; not always precise)
Ray v. ESPN, Inc., 783 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir.2015) (claims potentially preempted; context for publicity rights)