Livvy Dunne Files Objection to $2.8B House Settlement
Last Updated on June 8, 2025
The House v. NCAA settlement outlines a comprehensive plan to compensate Division I athletes for past name, image, and likeness restrictions and to establish a revenue-sharing model moving forward. The settlement includes nearly $2.8 billion allocated for back pay to athletes over 10 years, addressing previous limitations on NIL earnings. Additionally, the agreement introduces a revenue-sharing framework, with the total value of new payments and benefits expected to exceed $20 billion over the next decade.
On December 23, 2024, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken approved a Q&A document designed to clarify the terms of the House v. NCAA settlement for athletes. This document addresses key questions, such as whether all college athletes will receive NIL payments from their schools. The answer indicates that the decision to provide NIL payments is determined by individual college athletes and their respective institutions. The Q&A is not exhaustive and may be updated to provide further guidance.
LSU gymnast Olivia “Livvy” Dunne filed a formal objection to this settlement, expressing her concerns over transparency and the fairness of NIL compensation. In her letter to Wilken, Dunne highlighted a lack of clarity in how the estimated losses from NIL opportunities were calculated and questioned whether a uniform formula was applied across all athletes and sports. Dunne emphasized that, if represented individually, she would “want to know how the valuation of damages was calculated specifically to me.”
Key Concerns in Dunne’s Opposition to the Settlement
At the heart of Dunne’s objections is the settlement’s flawed calculation of lost NIL opportunities when NIL restrictions were in place. She argues that the formula does not accurately reflect the true market value of what athletes could have earned if not for NCAA restrictions, particularly for those with high marketability. Instead, Dunne questions “if the same formula is being applied to all athletes across every sport.” By failing to account for these disparities, the settlement may significantly undervalue the financial losses suffered by some athletes.
Dunne also criticized the lack of transparency in the decision-making process, specifically as to how athletes were provided limited access to key information. Dunne specifies her concern stating, “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, she argued, forced athletes to make crucial financial decisions without a clear understanding of what they were entitled to receive.
Beyond the settlement’s financial shortcomings, Dunne raised concerns about the exclusion of athletes from negotiations. She views this as yet another instance of the NCAA sidelining the very individuals most affected by its policies stating, “The settlement was reached without athletes being represented in the discussion continuing the long tradition of shutting athletes out of having a voice in a legal issue where they hold a financial interest.” With the final settlement approval set for April 7, her objections underscore lingering issues that could complicate its implementation.
Awaiting the April 7 Deadline: Will Objections Lead to Changes?
Dunne immediately capitalized on the NCAA’s adoption of NIL rules in 2021, quickly establishing herself as a leader in non-revenue sports. Leveraging her growing gymnastics career and social media presence, she amassed 13.7 million followers and achieved an NIL valuation of $4.2 million—the highest ever for a female college athlete. Simply put, she is no stranger to utilizing opportunities in the NIL world.
As a prominent figure in collegiate athletics, Dunne’s stance brings significant attention to the ongoing discussions about athlete compensation and the need for equitable treatment in the evolving NIL landscape.
As the April 7 deadline for final approval of the settlement approaches, at least 18 other objections like Dunne’s are highlighting significant concerns such as roster limits, Title IX, and salary caps that could affect the final outcome. The deadline arrived Friday to submit objections to the House Settlement, giving Wilken until April 7 to review and consider the final approval.
“We don’t think there’s anything in the objections that hasn’t been known about the settlement, wasn’t raised by others at the preliminary approval process,” said the NCAA’s lead counsel on the lawsuit, Rakesh Kilaru. “We don’t think there’s anything in the objections that will give the judge reason to change her mind.”
These unresolved issues not only challenge the fairness of the settlement but also raise important questions about how future policies will address the needs of college athletes. With several objections pending, it remains to be seen whether the final settlement will undergo revisions to address these concerns or if the current terms will stand.
