Keller and O'Bannon case is almost history.
Berman noted that the settlement with EA will allow attorneys to focus on claims against the NCAA, who has not settled. “We hold that the NCAA intentionally looked the other way while EA commercialized the likenesses of students, and it did so because it knew that EA’s financial success meant a bigger royalty check to the NCAA.”
“We are looking forward to presenting our case against the NCAA to a jury at trial,” Berman added. “We believe the facts will reveal a startling degree of complicity and profiteering on the backs of student athletes.”
The cases drew national attention because the case revolved, in part, on whether EA’s videogames and representations of the player-athletes were protected under the First Amendment as artistic impression.
In the ruling by the Ninth Circuit, Judge Jay Bybee -- writing for the majority -- said that EA’s use of Keller’s image “does not qualify for First Amendment protection as a matter of law because it literally recreates Keller in the very setting in which he has achieved renown.”
Judge Claudia Wilken in the US District Court for Northern California must grant preliminary approval of the settlement before ultimately approving the deal.
On July 17, 2013, the NCAA announced it would not renew its licensing agreement with EA, citing legal concerns. EA announced today that it would not produce its college football game next year
