U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on Tuesday upheld the House settlement administrator’s recent finding that multimedia rights companies (MMRs) and third-party brand sponsors can be classified as “associated entities” within the meaning of the agreement.

Wilken’s ruling is a win for the College Sports Commission as it tries to ensure NIL deals reflect commercial use of an athlete’s right of publicity and aren’t cloaking pay-for-play arrangements.

Associated entities include traditional “boosters” of athletic programs and, in certain circumstances, MMRs like Learfield, Playfly Sports and JMI when they both manage a school’s intellectual property rights and facilitate deals for that school’s individual athletes.

Class counsel representing the athletes in the settlement have argued MMRs shouldn’t fall within the definition of associated entities, since they do not operate like boosters. While boosters seek to help their favorite team recruit top players and win championships, MMRs are not aligned with any particular school and simply want to turn a profit. But when MMRs are partners with both a school and one of its athletes, it can become a murky mixture of both profit and boosting.

Whether a business is an associated entity has compliance consequences. The House settlement authorizes the CSC to review NIL deals for evidence of possible recruiting inducements and similar forms of compensation used to sway where athletes decide to play.

Cousins reasoned that whether an MMR counts as an associated entity is not an automatic yes or no. Instead, it depends on the specifics of a situation, including how an MMR engages with a particular school and athlete. He thus refused to declare all MMRs aren’t associated entities.

Wilken found Cousins’ reasoning acceptable and thus upheld his order. She also addressed a demand by class counsel for an order on a related topic. Class counsel want the CSC to stop investigating third-party NIL deals with MMRs and third-party brand sponsors absent a specific basis to engage in such investigation.

To that end, class counsel maintain the CSC pursues “burdensome” and “overbroad” investigations with onerous requirements for responses to document and information requests. Athletes allegedly lose out as a result and are “deprived of the unrestricted third-party NIL benefits that were central” to the settlement because companies, wary of invasive red tape and delays in negotiations, may become less willing to sign athletes to NIL deals. The counterargument is that the investigative approach is designed to ensure NIL deals are truly about NIL and not pay-for-play.

Wilken ruled class counsel first must raise this issue with Cousins, who, as special master, oversees implementation of the settlement and handles questions and disputes. Only after he rules can either side petition Wilken.

On a favorable note for class counsel, Wilken sided with them regarding a right to receive documents and information regarding CSC investigations. Class counsel say those materials are key to resolving a dispute between the two sides about “CSC’s investigative activities.”

The NCAA (and CSC) argue the settlement doesn’t provide that right.

Wilken pointed out language from the settlement referring to the parties “shall, upon the request of any [settlement] party” share materials that are “reasonably necessary and appropriate” to ensure an effective settlement.