California NIL Attorney

California NIL Legal Framework

California was an early adopter of NIL reform through California SB 206, later implemented after passage of AB 1281. These statutes permit student-athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness, subject to contractual and institutional constraints.

NCAA Regulatory Landscape

The NCAA interim NIL policy permits athletes to engage in NIL activity consistent with state law but continues to prohibit certain forms of pay-for-play and recruiting inducement. Enforcement priorities remain fluid. Institutions frequently adopt internal NIL disclosure policies and compliance mechanisms.

Athletes must navigate not only contractual terms but also the regulatory posture of their conference and university.

California Right of Publicity

California’s right of publicity jurisprudence is among the most developed in the country. Decisions such as White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. recognize protection against commercial appropriation of identity, even where literal likeness is not copied. In Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., the California Supreme Court articulated the transformative use test to balance publicity rights against First Amendment considerations.

For NIL participants, this body of law governs:

• Unauthorized merchandising
• Digital likeness exploitation
• Social media monetization
• Brand licensing disputes

California’s legal framework is both protective and complex. Proper structuring of agreements requires familiarity with these doctrines.

High School NIL in California

High school NIL activity presents unique risks. While California permits certain NIL activity for high school athletes, CIF rules, district policies, and recruiting considerations create compliance challenges.

Key issues include:

• Parental consent and minor contract enforceability
• Booster involvement and inducement exposure
• School district restrictions on logo or facility use
• Conflicts between NIL contracts and team obligations

High school athletes face heightened scrutiny regarding recruiting violations and undue influence. Agreements must be structured with eligibility preservation as a primary objective.

NIL Contract Red Flags

Many NIL agreements contain provisions that significantly disadvantage athletes or collectives.

Common concerns include:

Overbroad Exclusivity

• Clauses preventing athletes from engaging with competing brands across undefined product categories.

Perpetual Intellectual Property Grants

• Licenses that survive contract termination or lack defined scope.

Morals Clauses Without Objective Standards

• Broad termination rights triggered by subjective reputational harm.

Termination Without Cause

• Sponsor discretion to terminate while retaining previously granted IP rights.

Indemnification Provisions

• Athletes assuming disproportionate liability exposure.

Non-Compete Language

• Restrictions that may exceed enforceable bounds under California law.

Commission Stacking

• Overlapping agency and marketing commission structures that erode net compensation.

Collective Revenue Opacity

• Unclear funding sources, governance structure, or payment timelines.

Careful contract review can prevent long-term financial and reputational harm.

Athlete Brand and Intellectual Property Protection

An NIL strategy must extend beyond individual deals. It requires a team of business litigation attorneys who understand the value of branding and contract formation

Trademark Strategy

Filing federal trademark applications for athlete names, logos, and slogans preserves commercial leverage. Without registration, enforcement becomes more difficult and licensing value decreases.

Content Ownership

Highlight reels, social media posts, and sponsored content often involve layered copyright interests. Agreements must clarify ownership and reuse rights.

Licensing and Enforcement

Unauthorized use of an athlete’s likeness on merchandise, digital platforms, or promotional materials can result in actionable claims. Enforcement strategy should be considered at the outset, not after infringement occurs.

Representation of NIL Collectives

NIL collectives have become central actors in collegiate athletics. Their legal exposure extends beyond contract drafting.

Key considerations include:

• Governance structure and fiduciary oversight
• Donor agreement enforceability
• Compensation distribution models
• Tax classification
• Antitrust exposure in the post-NCAA v. Alston environment
• Institutional coordination

Collectives must operate with regulatory awareness and contractual clarity. Informal arrangements invite litigation.