By Emma Fernald, Tulane Sports Law
On September 30, 2025, Judge Susan Van Kuelen denied the Mountain West’s motion to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit brought by the Pac-12. The court held that the Pac-12’s complaint adequately stated claims challenging the legality of the Mountain West’s “poaching-fee” clause and therefore survived dismissal.
The Pac-12 entered a scheduling partnership with the Mountain West Conference (MWC) for the 2024 football season after losing ten of its twelve members due to realignments in 2023. Under this agreement, there was a clause requiring the Pac-12 to pay a termination fee to the MWC for any Mountain West school that departs to join the Pac-12. After five MWC schools announced their plans to join the Pac-12, the MWC demanded tens of millions of dollars in termination payments. In response, the Pac-12 filed a lawsuit, arguing that the termination fee clause violates the federal Sherman Antitrust Act as well as California’s Cartwright Act, Unfair Competition Law, and common law.
In a seventeen-page opinion, the court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the Pac-12 had plausibly alleged each of its claims. Judge Van Kuelen ruled that the Pac-12 had antitrust standing, because it claimed real harm to competition through reduced resources and a weaker ability to attract member schools, and that more facts were needed to decide whether the termination fee violated antitrust law. The court also allowed the state law claims to proceed, finding that the Pac-12 plausibly alleged the fees were unfair and unenforceable penalties.
“The Mountain West Conference’s attempt to charge the Pac-12 exorbitant poaching penalties as a condition for scheduling football games is unfair, anticompetitive, and unlawful,” stated Eric MacMichael of Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, in San Francisco, representing the Pac-12. The Mountain West, represented by Alexander L. Cheney of Latham & Watkins LLP, in San Francisco, responded that the “ruling makes no judgment about the ultimate merits of the Pac-12’s claims,” and that “the Mountain West remains confident in its position and looks forward to vigorously defending the matter.” On October 23, 2025, the Mountain West filed counterclaims in response, alleging claims of breach of contract and fraud. The Court scheduled a case management conference for November 18, 2025.
