Judge weighs settlement in pair of UFC monopoly lawsuits

LAS VEGAS (CN) — Concerns from a Las Vegas judge on Friday could derail an attempt by Ultimate Fighting Championship and some of its fighters to settle 10 years of litigation, where the fighters accuse the mixed martial arts organization of monopolistic practices.

UFC agreed in March to pay $335 million to settle with a class of roughly 1,200 athletes, marking the end of two separate class action lawsuits against UFC and former sports promotion company Zuffa.

In the first class action from 2014, led by retired UFC middleweight Cung Le, the fighters accuse the organization of restricting athletes' earnings through an "overarching anticompetitive scheme" that involves buying up rival MMA promoters and forcing major venues to work with UFC exclusively.

The second class action — filed in 2021 and led by former UFC fighters Kajan Johnson and Clarence Dollaway — challenged the restrictive contracts that prevent athletes from working for other promoters.

At a preliminary approval hearing Friday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Richard Boulware cautioned that the fighters in the Johnson case, which has no active UFC athletes named as plaintiffs, might not have an adequate voice in the proceedings.

Active athletes are subject to an arbitration clause in their contracts with UFC that previous athletes were not bound by, and the settlement does not prevent UFC from continuing to use the arbitration clause. Rather, it prevents fighters from challenging the clause, or any other monopolistic practices.

"It is difficult for me to understand why, if Johnson were settling separately, that class members would agree to this amount of injunctive relief," Boulware said.

While athletes can opt themselves out of the settlement individually, Boulware felt that the 45-day was not long enough for class members of the Johnson suit to understand that "they give up, more or less, their ability to bring any claim against UFC in the near future."  

Attorney Eric Cramer, representing the plaintiffs in both the Le and Johnson cases, offered to extend the opt-out period to allow the athletes the time to consider their options.

"We're perfectly willing to extend that period," said Cramer. "It's not a hill we're dying on."

Cramer also argued that active athletes benefit from being attached to the lawsuit since the very existence of the arbitration clause would make it difficult for active athletes to bring the case to trial.

"Courts in this country have enforced arbitration clauses in the most bizarre cases," Cramer said.

In an unusual move, Cramer also alluded to the relationship between UFC president Dana White and former president Donald Trump. White, who has spoken in support of Trump in the past, is scheduled to give the final speech before Trump accepts the GOP nomination for the 2024 election.

Cramer argued that continuing litigation would likely result in the case reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, which would likely be poised to rule against the plaintiffs under Trump's leadership.

Boulware said he would take the arguments under consideration and that he plans to issue a ruling on the settlement sometime next week.

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit