Judge rejects $335 million UFC antitrust lawsuit settlement, sets trial date for October
A $335 million settlement in two class action lawsuits against the UFC has expired. Judge Richard Boulware did not approve the settlement on Tuesday and set a tentative trial date of Oct. 28 for the Le vs. Zuffa case and a status conference date of Aug. 19 for both cases.
Settlement for two class action antitrust lawsuits (Lay v. Zuffa and Johnson v. Zuffa) arrived in marchThe judge immediately expressed skepticism over approving the settlement, saying he felt the UFC was giving too little leeway in paying fighters in the Le case and was not making significant changes to the UFC’s restrictive covenants in the Johnson case.
The antitrust lawsuits alleged that the UFC used practices that hindered fighters’ ability to negotiate with other promotions and tied fighters into restrictive covenants that reduced fighters’ pay. The lawsuits sought up to $1.6 billion in damages.
“We categorically disagree with this decision and believe it disregards the expertise of lawyers on both sides, as well as that of a skilled and expert arbitrator – all of whom have decades of experience in anti-competition case law,” the UFC said in a statement.
“It prevents the players from obtaining what they argued was in their best interests, and nullifies a comprehensively negotiated settlement that, in the words of plaintiffs’ counsel, ‘would have been far superior to the typical anti-competitive class action settlement’ and ‘by all traditional means an excellent result for the settlement classes.'”
“Additionally, by taking the unusual step of rejecting the agreement at this early approval stage, the judge is also depriving the athletes of their right to be heard during this crucial moment of the case.”
The $335 million settlement would have been split among fighters who competed in UFC fights during the period covered by both lawsuits — Le v. Zuffa from 2010 to 2017 and Johnson v. Zuffa covering the period after 2017 — after any fees were paid to the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Initially filed as five separate lawsuits between December 2014 and March 2015, the cases were merged into the Le v. Zuffa case, with the Johnson v. Zuffa case filed in 2021. The payments would also have been proportional to the amount each fighter earned during their fights and the amount of fights they had in the promotion.
The rejection of the settlement was opposed by both sides, with plaintiffs arguing that the agreement would have provided immediate financial assistance to fighters who were in need of the funds.
Both sides are now at odds, and a defeat could be devastating for either side. The UFC could be forced to pay out billions of dollars And Fighters can change their contract structure with a loss in a jury trial, while fighters will walk away with nothing if the verdict – which must be a unanimous decision of the jury – doesn’t go in their favor. Plus, the UFC will be able to file an appeal if they lose, meaning it could be years before fighters get a penny, even if they win the case and subsequent appeal.
Thus, the refusal to accept the deal agreed to by Judge Boulware is damaging to both parties.
The two sides could revisit negotiations to find a deal that Judge Boulware would accept, but that agreement would not only require a significant increase in monetary payments but would also see structural changes to UFC contracts, including making free agency much easier for fighters looking to increase their market value after competing in the Octagon. The contract changes themselves could make the UFC hesitant to engage in further negotiations and instead make it likely that the fighters’ case would not be strong enough to hold up in a jury trial.
