Student Commentary
Published on August 2, 2023

Court Denies The Brandr Group’s Request for Temporary Restraining Order Against EA College Football Game


Diana Hymowitz is a student at Temple University Beasley School of Law. She is a member of the Sports and Entertainment Law Society and serves as a Sports Law Research Assistant. She has previously worked for the Washington Commanders, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Major League Baseball, The University of Pennsylvania Football Team, Capital City Go-Go, Washington’s Wizards G-League Affiliate, and University at Albany Football Team. Twitter: @DianaHy17

The legal fight between EA Sports and The Brandr Group continues, with EA Sports taking the most recent win.

In February 2021, EA Sports announced that they will be relaunching their very popular College Football video game. On June 20, 2023, The Brandr Group (Brandr) filed suit in the U.S. Northern District of California against EA over the company’s use of college players’ names, images, and likenesses for little-to-no compensation as well as violation of Brandr’s exclusive Group Licensing Agreements with the schools and athletes. The lawsuit, initially filed on June 15, 2023 in San Mateo Superior Court, accuses EA Sports of compensating college football players a mere $500 with no royalties while using their names, images, and likenesses in a game that will likely make millions. EA Sports immediately and successfully petitioned the court to move the case to federal court as the parties are from different jurisdictions and the amount in question exceeds $75,000.

The Brandr Group sought to delay the production of the game by filing for a temporary restraining order. However, EA Sports’ timeline looks to remain on track with a California federal judge denying Brandr’s request on June 30.

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. said that the agency failed to show any risk of immediate harm to the athletes and that Brandr provided little support for its allegations that EA would continue to encourage colleges and student-athletes to break their contractual obligations if the restraining order was not granted. Brandr alleged that EA Sports set a deadline of June 30 to pressure schools into agreeing to participate in the game; however EA argued that schools could sign up after that date and June 30 was a “target date” to gauge interest rather than a hard deadline.

Judge Gilliam wrote in the order, “defendant has not reached out to any student-athletes to participate in the game yet. Because schools generally do not set their rosters until spring, defendant anticipates that it likely will not identify eligible students until 2024. Given this runway, plaintiff has not demonstrated the threat of any immediate harm.”

Judge Gilliam continued by saying that Brandr had yet to establish that they have exclusive rights to the schools’ IP or students’ names, images, and likenesses, rather only that the agency and the schools have agreed to collaborate on a group licensing program. He writes, “What appears to be at stake here, then, is simply the possible monetary benefit that plaintiff could receive from creating co-branding licensing opportunities that package a school’s IP and students’ NIL rights together. Plaintiff attempts to couch the loss of this co-branding opportunity as irreparable harm. But this too falls short.”

While the decision leans heavily in favor of EA Sports, it does not address the other major issue surrounding the game- how much players will be paid. EA Sports has reportedly considered offering student-athletes a meager $500 payment with no royalties for a game that had generated between $80 and $125 million a year before its discontinuation. EA has faced backlash for this, not only from Brandr but from the College Football Players Association as well. Justin Falcinelli, Vice President of the College Football Players Association, has urged players to boycott the deal citing the ridiculously low amount of money offered.

Questions about this post? Drop us a line at lawcomm@temple.edu.