The UFC has reached a $375 million antitrust lawsuit settlement, subject to the courts approving it.

The UFC faced two lawsuits claiming it broke antitrust laws to create a monopoly and control how much fighters earned. A lawsuit was filed in 2014 called Le vs. Zuffa. Another followed in 2021 by the name of Johnson vs. Zuffa. TKO Group Holdings Inc. agreed to a $335 million settlement for the first lawsuit. However, Judge Richard Franklin Boulware did not let it proceed, claiming the figure was too low. This meant a trial was needed unless an agreement was made. The UFC has said it has reached a $375 million settlement for the first lawsuit. The other has not been addressed, but the judge must still ratify the first.

“We have reached a revised agreement with Plaintiffs to settle the Le case with terms that we believe address Judge Boulware’s stated concerns. While we believe the original settlement was fair — a sentiment that was also shared by Plaintiffs — we feel it is in the best interest of all parties to bring this litigation to a close. As for the Johnson case, that process is in very early stages, and a motion to dismiss the complaint remains pending,” UFC stated

“We believe this new proposed settlement for the Le case is an excellent result for the class of UFC fighters we represent. If approved, it would provide immediate monetary relief to over 1,000 fighters who would each recover a significant enhancement to what he or she earned from the UFC during his or her fighting career. We look forward to presenting the proposed settlement to the court for preliminary approved in the near future. We also plan on vigourously pursuing claims on behalf of the fighter class in the later-filed Johnson case, including claims for injunctive relief against the UFC,” Eric Cramer (attorney for the plaintiff) said

DAZN

DAZN has been sued after suggestions it has charged customers renewal fees without their consent. ClassAction.org alleges the network used ‘consumer confusion and inertia’ to violate California’s Automatic Renewal Law.

‘Online retailers’ should make their renewal terms in ‘a clear and conspicuous manner’ and get the customer’s permission before charging for renewals. They must also have a clear way for customers to cancel. The lawsuit claims DAZN ‘systemically violates’ that, which ‘makes it exceedingly difficult and unnecessarily confusing.’ That has led to ‘accidental or unintentional sign-ups.’ 

“In fact, Defendant’s conduct has drawn the attention and ire of customers across the country, with countless angry customers taking to the Internet to voice their discontent over Defendant’s deceitful tactics,” lawsuit

Reaction

Not enough smh

— Travone (@Trav0ne) September 26, 2024

If all the terms are the same or similar and it’s just a $40m increase the judge is 100% rejecting this. Will need some more information because I don’t think the judge rejected it solely on monetary purposes.

— Zak (@katank7) September 26, 2024

How many fighters are involved in this one? Still seems really low

— CEO of Jiu Jitsu (@caseharts) September 26, 2024