Case Overview

Case: Calhoun v. California Interscholastic Federation

Filed: May 30, 2025

Court: Federal (California)

Plaintiffs: Former and current California high school athletes

Defendant: California Interscholastic Federation (CIF)

Legal Theories: Federal and California antitrust law

Status: Active litigation

California High School Athletes Sue Over Name, Image, and Likeness Rights — What to Know

A class action lawsuit is challenging the California Interscholastic Federation's rules governing student-athlete compensation, adding a new front to the ongoing national debate over whether amateur athletic associations can legally restrict how athletes profit from their own identities.

The Growing Landscape of NIL Litigation

Name, Image, and Likeness rights — commonly known as NIL — have reshaped college athletics since the NCAA loosened its restrictions in 2021. Now, according to recent legal news coverage, that legal pressure is reaching high school sports in California. A new class action lawsuit targets the California Interscholastic Federation, the governing body for high school athletics in the state, alleging its NIL rules amount to an unlawful restraint of trade.

1. Calhoun v. California Interscholastic Federation

Filed: May 30, 2025

Estimated Payout: Not yet determined; case is in early litigation

Who May Be Affected: Current and former California high school athletes subject to CIF NIL restrictions

Former high school football player Dominik Calhoun filed the lawsuit on May 30, 2025, in federal court, according to reporting on the case. The complaint alleges that the California Interscholastic Federation's rules prohibiting or restricting high school athletes from monetizing their name, image, and likeness constitute unlawful restraints of trade under both federal and California antitrust law.

According to the filing, the lawsuit argues that CIF's restrictions prevent student-athletes from participating in the same NIL marketplace that has become available to their college counterparts — a distinction the complaint characterizes as economically unjust and legally impermissible.

While antitrust law forms the core legal framework, the complaint's focus on fair compensation for athletes places it in territory familiar to California labor and employment disputes, where courts have increasingly scrutinized agreements that limit workers' economic opportunities.

The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of all California high school athletes affected by the CIF's NIL policies, though the scope of the class has not yet been formally certified by a court.

How to follow the case: Additional reporting is available through LawyersAndSettlements.com's coverage of the lawsuit.

Background: What Is NIL and Why Does It Matter?

NIL refers to an individual's right to profit from the commercial use of their own name, image, and likeness — through endorsement deals, social media sponsorships, merchandise, and similar arrangements. Before the NCAA's 2021 policy shift, college athletes were barred from such earnings. High school governing bodies, including the CIF, have largely maintained their own separate restrictions.

The Calhoun lawsuit argues that those high school-level restrictions are no longer legally defensible, particularly in California, where courts and legislators have historically applied broad scrutiny to agreements that limit economic competition and individual earning potential.

Antitrust claims of this type typically hinge on whether a governing body's rules constitute an unreasonable restriction on competition — a legal question that courts have recently been willing to apply to athletic associations in ways they historically had not.

Key Takeaways

• The lawsuit is in early stages. No settlement has been reached, no class has been certified, and no damages have been assessed. Outcomes remain uncertain.
• Antitrust law, not labor law, is the primary legal theory — but the underlying question of whether athletes can be blocked from earning compensation has clear parallels to California employment disputes.
• High school athletes, not college athletes, are the focus. This case is distinct from ongoing NCAA NIL litigation and specifically targets CIF policies governing California's interscholastic sports programs.
• California's legal environment matters. The state has some of the strongest worker and competition protections in the country, which may be relevant to how courts evaluate the CIF's rules.
• No claim filing deadline exists yet. Because this is active litigation — not a settled case — there is no current deadline for affected individuals to take action.

This article reports on active litigation. No settlement has been reached, and no class has been certified. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice. Individuals with questions about their specific situation should consult a qualified attorney.