Athletes who want to enter NIL deals typically have issues with the right of publicity, which forbids the business use of someone’s identity without their consent, or competitive law, which challenges the notion that rival businesses have joined forces to fraudulently prevent NIL.
A brand-new lawsuit in North Carolina attempts a different technique by accusing a state firm of being ineligible regarding NIL deals for public high school athletes.
The state’s board of education and department of public instruction sued the state’s board of education and department of public instruction last Friday on the grounds that they misinterpreted congressional approval. The family of University of Tennessee five-star sports attract Faizon Brandon, who is a rising rookie at Grimsley High School in North Carolina and is regarded as one of the top QBs in his course, filed the lawsuit.

Rolanda Brandon asks for a preliminary injunction to prevent the state from enforcing a state legislation that forbids NIL offers for students in public high school to be declared irrelevant.
North Carolina’s board of education reportedly failed to follow Senate Bill 452, which directed the board to control” student aspiring status needs, including regulations related to use of a person’s name, image and likeness”.
Next month, the board of education adopted ATHL-008, which prohibits public school students from signing NIL deals during the 2024-25 academic time. The ban covers NIL talks involving public appearances, advertisements, signature deals, sport tents and clinics, sales of non-fungible tokens, product or service endorsements, special activities and social media advertisements.
According to Brandon, the legislature would n’t have chosen the word “use” if it had anticipated the board of education would outlaw all use. The government allegedly picked “use” with the idea the implementing agency may manage the exercise, if the government wished to see the exercise banned, it would have chosen a word such as “ban” or “prohibit”. The organization has allegedly acted outside the bounds of its authority by prohibiting NIL deals.
Brandon, who is represented by attorneys Michael A. Ingersoll and Matthew F. Tilley, asserts a preliminary injunction is warranted because the policy “entirely precludes” her son from “entering into a formal licensing and endorsement agreement” with an NIL sponsor, and he can “never recover the time lost” from entering into a deal with the sponsor. An injunction reflects how the high school sports clock could make the lawsuit unfavorable. Although a lawsuit can take months or years to settle, Faizon intends to win the case by December 2025.
Brandon’s affidavit sheds light on how her son is harmed by an NIL prohibition. She says that in April, a “prominent, national trading card company” offered him a” substantial” amount of money that would provide him “financial security for years”. The company, Brandon says, “has already indicated once that it may have to rescind or reduce the offer” if her son” cannot accept his offer and sign an agreement with]the company ] this year”.

Fanatics did not provide the court filing, but it has since signed numerous high-profile athletes to endorsement deals over the past year.
Because of state regulations, Brandon goes on to say that “other prospective business partners have decided not to offer” her son endorsements.
Given that the unnamed would-be sponsor has paid high school athletes in states where they can sign NIL agreements, Faizon Brandon’s mother claims that the NIL ban could cost him more than$ 1 million. In accordance with a recent count, high school athletes are permitted to enter NIL agreements in 38 states and the District of Columbia. Additionally, according to Brandon, high school athletes at private schools in North Carolina “have signed endorsement agreements that allow them to receive compensation from licensing the use of their NIL.”
Brandon portrays her numerous unsuccessful attempts to persuade agency officials to reconsider their position as being swiftly dismissed by unsympathetic bureaucrats. One agency official allegedly told her in July that there was no evidence that the inability of high school students to enter NIL agreements was what made urgent action necessary.
The case faces hurdles.
Government organizations generally have a lot of discretion when it comes to implementing policies. The organizations might argue that a ban for the upcoming season advances state interests because the NIL marketplace is currently unregulated and chaotic and because learning and education are important in high-school education. The fact that 38 states handle NIL differently, the agencies might assert, is irrelevant and a non-sequitur, since North Carolina agencies are charged with advancing the state’s objectives.
The organizations could also argue that NIL’s prohibition is textually in line with Senate Bill 452’s mandate because it contemplates “use.” The organizations could claim that they followed the command and made the determination that no use was permitted.
In terms of irreparable harm, it is typically the kind of harm that money damages cannot later correct, such as an athlete who was suspended from a game that never will be replayed. Here, the organizations might claim that Brandon has indicated the alleged harm is calculable and that it could be redressed by money by claiming her son will lose over a million dollars in lost NIL deals.