Here are a few more tidbits on the current legalese action going on in California over the current NCAA Athletes lawsuits against the NCAA:
There are numerous suits working their way through the courts right now. A quick Google and database search brought up several similar cases to Keller's, including a suit by former Rutger's QB Ryan Hart.
Claudia Wilken, the judge in the O'Bannon vs. NCAA suit, combined the claims of the Keller lawsuit into the O'Bannon case in the ruling issued last week. The accusers have 30 days to file an amended combined claim on the NCAA there, so expect more news by Early March at the latest.
As we reported, the California court system rejected EA's attempt to get the case thrown out as well as their claims of protecting the "public interest" and "public affaris". Also, EA's claim of protection by the First Amendment was all but thrown out as well.
Knowing what I know, if the case progresses very far and the argument comes down to whether EA is using likenesses in their games without athletes permission, they will almost certainly lose. EA actually pays people to research and do rosters for their NCAA games to make them as realistic as possible (either internally or externally). I'm sure with enough historical interview coverage, you will probably find an EA employee admitting to trying to get more accurate rosters in NCAA as well. As always, I must use the standard legalese can be tricky and unpredictable disclaimer, because who knows how things might actually work out.
That's it for now. But I figured I'd post an update before I post another blog later on today dealing with the OVR ratings in sports games (be sure to check that one out!). In the meantime, I know many of you are rooting against Keller/O'Bannon here, what arguments can EA and the NCAA muster up to avoid the damaging penalties they might have to incur?