UFC issues statement after judge rejects antitrust settlement

The UFC is unhappy with a judge’s decision to reject a settlement that would have ended a nearly decade-long antitrust lawsuit brought by a group of former fighters.

Hours after Judge Richard Boulware of the U.S. District Court in Nevada rejected a $335 million settlement offered by both sides in the legal dispute, the UFC, through parent company TKO Group Holdings Inc., issued a statement expressing dissatisfaction with the decision.

“We clearly disagree with this ruling and believe it disregards the expertise of the lawyers on both sides, as well as the experienced and seasoned mediator – all of whom have decades of experience in antitrust adjudication.

“It denies athletes what they believe is in their best interests and invalidates a broadly negotiated settlement that, as plaintiffs’ counsel put it, “would be far superior to a typical antitrust class action settlement” and “is an excellent outcome for the Settlement Classes by any traditional metric.”

“Furthermore, by taking the unusual step of rejecting the settlement at this preliminary approval stage, the judge is also denying the athletes the right to be heard at this crucial juncture in the case.

“As we have said throughout this process, we believe strongly in the righteousness of our cases and are considering all of our options – including, without limitation, an appeal – and have entered into discussions with plaintiffs’ attorneys who have expressed a desire to pursue the matter further.”“in separate settlement talks in the Le and Johnson cases.”

Plaintiffs’ attorney Eric L. Cramer said in a written statement to MMA Junkie that he is focused on the future, whether that means going to trial or reaching a new settlement.

“Plaintiffs respect the Court’s ruling rejecting the proposed global solution Le AND Johnson cases and accordingly we will operate at full speed on all fronts in accordance with the Court’s guidelines. We are currently planning to accelerate preparations in Le for the upcoming hearing, and we will also start taking steps to obtain evidence JohnsonAt the same time, with the interests of our clients and classes in mind, we are also open to re-engaging with UFC to see if the parties could reach a settlement, building on the momentum achieved in the prior settlement, but working to address the concerns expressed by the Court regarding that decision.

“In particular, in order to eliminate several issues raised by the Court in relation to the previously proposed joint decision, Le AND JohnsonThe plaintiffs believe that the best solution, if a new settlement becomes possible, would be to try to resolve both cases separately, with the first focus being on Le the case, taking into account the approaching trial date and using the progress made to date as a starting point for further discussions.

“Accordingly, while Plaintiffs focus on preparing for trial, we remain open to a potential new resolution. At their core, Plaintiffs want nothing more and nothing less than justice for the professional MMA athletes we have represented for over a decade in the most efficient and effective manner possible.”

Of the two concurrent lawsuits, the first (Le vs. Zuffa) has a tentative trial date of October 28. A status conference for both Le vs. Zuffa and Johnson vs. Zuffa is scheduled for August 19 and could result in a later official trial date.

Judge Boulware had the option to end the trial if he had approved the agreement the two sides reached in June. However, various concerns, including insufficient monetary damages, lack of an injunction and others, led him to reject the settlement, despite objections from both sides.

If the lawsuit goes to trial, the former UFC fighters would need a unanimous jury to approve it. If they don’t get it, they could walk away with nothing. If they win, they could face years of appeals before any relief, whether financial or injunctive, comes.

Le’s lawsuit began nearly a decade ago. Five separate class action lawsuits between December 2014 and March 2015 were eventually consolidated into one (Le et al.), and a second separate lawsuit was filed in 2021 (Johnson et al.).

The lawsuits alleged violations of the Sherman Act. Class action lawsuits allow for triple damages, meaning the court could triple the amount it sought from UFC.

A group of former fighters alleged that the UFC’s contract structure and business practices limited fighters’ ability to negotiate and explore other promotional options, creating a monopsony. This action was led by former fighters Cung Le, Kyle Kingsbury, Kajan Johnson, Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera and others.