Chicago Cubs Lawsuit Against Wrigley View Rooftop, Here Is What Is Happening and Why It Matters

Prepared by the AllAboutLawyer.com Editorial Team and reviewed for factual accuracy against official court records and Sportico legal analysis on May 11, 2026. Last Updated: May 11, 2026

Chicago Cubs is facing a lawsuit dispute with Wrigley View Rooftop, a business at 1050 W. Waveland Ave. that sells tickets to watch Cubs games from a rooftop across the street from Wrigley Field — without the team’s permission. The Cubs filed a federal lawsuit in June 2024 against Wrigley View Rooftop and its owner, Aiden Dunican, describing the sales as unlicensed and amounting to intellectual property theft. The case is active in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and is moving closer to a potential trial.

Chicago Cubs vs. Wrigley View Rooftop: Quick Facts

Field	Detail
Lawsuit Filed	June 2024
Defendant	Wrigley View Rooftop / Aiden Dunican
Alleged Violations	Misappropriation, unjust enrichment, trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, violation of Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
Who Is Affected	Cubs fans, Wrigleyville businesses, future rooftop licensing in Chicago
Current Court Stage	Pre-trial discovery; multiple defense motions denied
Court & Jurisdiction	U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Presiding Judge	U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
Lead Law Firm (Cubs)	Kirkland & Ellis (Timothy Knapp & Kent Hayden)
Next Major Date	TBD — pretrial discovery deadline was June 12, 2025 per court filings
Official Case Website	TBD — no official public case site established
Last Updated	May 11, 2026

What the Chicago Cubs Accuse Wrigley View Rooftop of Doing

The Cubs’ core argument is straightforward: Wrigley View Rooftop profits from Cubs games without paying for the product — free-riding off the team’s billion-dollar investment in players, operations, and the ballpark itself.

For two decades, rooftop businesses around Wrigley Field operated under a licensing deal where they shared roughly 17% of rooftop seat revenue and 11% of billboard revenue with the Cubs. That arrangement expired on December 31, 2023. Every other rooftop operator accepted a new deal or shut down. Wrigley View Rooftop did not.

The Cubs say they warned Wrigley View Rooftop multiple times in 2024 to stop selling tickets without a renewed agreement. Dunican refused. The lawsuit also accuses the business of falsely advertising itself as an “Official Cubs Partner” — which it is not. That’s the trademark infringement angle, and it’s separate from the property rights fight.

This case sits inside the broader landscape of consumer rights lawsuits against businesses that profit from others’ intellectual property, which courts across the country are actively shaping right now.

Are You Affected by the Chicago Cubs Wrigley View Rooftop Lawsuit?

This is not a consumer class action — you cannot file a claim or receive a settlement payment. But the outcome will directly affect you if:

• You bought a ticket from Wrigley View Rooftop for any Cubs game or concert at Wrigley Field in 2024 or 2025 — those sales are the exact conduct at the center of this lawsuit
• You live or own a business in Wrigleyville — a ruling against rooftop sellers could reshape how neighboring buildings operate during Cubs season
• You are a Cubs season ticket holder — the team argues unlicensed rooftop sales cost them ticket and concession revenue, which affects how the franchise funds operations

You may be NOT directly affected if:

• You watched Cubs games only inside Wrigley Field
• You have no connection to rooftop venues on Waveland or Sheffield Ave.

What the Cubs Are Asking the Court to Do

The Cubs are seeking a permanent injunction that would bar Wrigley View Rooftop from ever selling access to watch Cubs games or Wrigley Field events from an adjacent building. They are also asking the court for monetary damages — specifically, the profits Wrigley View Rooftop made from unlicensed sales.

Wrigley View Rooftop denies wrongdoing and argues the dispute should go to private arbitration, not federal court. The company claims it sells access to its own rooftop — not to Cubs games — and that the Cubs play in a public city where adjacent buildings naturally overlook the park.

Judge Coleman has rejected that argument twice. She concluded that the Cubs have an established property right in live Cubs games produced at Wrigley Field, citing an 87-year-old precedent from Pittsburgh Athletic Co. v. KQV Broadcasting Co. — a 1938 case involving a radio station that stationed observers on a rooftop adjacent to Forbes Field to broadcast Pirates games without paying for the rights. That case is the legal backbone of the Cubs’ entire argument.

Related article: Ethan Cantrell Lawsuit Against Good Samaritan Hospital, Oregon Teen Died After Doctor Left Twigs and Moss Inside Arm Wound

For context on how courts have ruled when businesses profit from another party’s licensed content without permission, see our coverage of the GM OnStar data lawsuit — where similar questions about unauthorized use of proprietary data are being tested in federal court.

Chicago Cubs vs. Wrigley View Rooftop: Lawsuit Timeline

Milestone	Date
Licensing agreement with rooftop businesses expired	December 31, 2023
Cubs warned Wrigley View Rooftop to stop selling tickets	Early 2024
Cubs filed federal lawsuit	June 2024
Judge Coleman denied motion to dismiss (arbitration challenge)	January 2025
Judge Coleman denied motion for reconsideration	April 2025
Judge Coleman denied motion for judgment on pleadings	May 2026
Pretrial discovery deadline	TBD — June 12, 2025 was an earlier court-ordered deadline; current schedule pending
Trial date	TBD — not yet scheduled
Expected resolution	TBD — case could settle at any time

What to Do If You Were a Wrigley View Rooftop Customer

Right now, there is nothing you need to file. This is not a settlement. But here is what makes sense:

• Save any tickets or receipts from Wrigley View Rooftop events — if the case evolves into something affecting consumers, documentation will matter
• Monitor the PACER federal court docket for the Northern District of Illinois for case updates
• Do not pay anyone claiming to register you for this lawsuit — no claim form exists and no settlement has been reached
• If you believe you were harmed by false advertising — specifically by Wrigley View Rooftop’s claim of being an “Official Cubs Partner” — consult a consumer rights lawyer about your individual options

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there an active lawsuit against Wrigley View Rooftop? 

Yes. The Chicago Cubs sued Wrigley View Rooftop and owner Aiden Dunican in June 2024, alleging misappropriation, unjust enrichment, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising. The case is active in federal court in Chicago.

Do I need to do anything right now to be part of this case?

 No. This is not a consumer class action. Ordinary Cubs fans and rooftop customers are not plaintiffs. You do not need to file anything.

When will a settlement be reached in the Cubs vs. Wrigley View Rooftop case?

 TBD — no settlement has been announced. The case could settle at any time, but it is currently moving forward and has not been dismissed. Judge Coleman has denied every defense motion to date.

Can Wrigley View Rooftop keep selling tickets while the lawsuit is active? 

Yes — as of 2025, Wrigley View Rooftop was still selling tickets and marketing itself as “the last Wrigley rooftop to be independently owned and operated.” No court order has shut it down yet.

How will I know if the Cubs lawsuit results in a settlement?

 AllAboutLawyer.com will update this article when any material development occurs. You can also monitor the case directly on PACER through the Northern District of Illinois federal court docket.

Has the Cubs rooftop dispute ever been litigated before? 

Yes. In 2004, the Cubs and rooftop businesses reached a settlement that required those businesses to share 17% of rooftop seat revenue and 11% of billboard revenue with the team. That agreement expired December 31, 2023. Only Wrigley View Rooftop declined the Cubs’ offer to extend it.

Is Wrigley View Rooftop’s claim of being an “Official Cubs Partner” true? 

No. The Cubs’ lawsuit specifically alleges that Wrigley View Rooftop falsely advertised a Cubs endorsement, causing consumer confusion about whether any legitimate business relationship exists between the two parties.

Sources & References

• U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois — Official court filings via PACER

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal claims and outcomes depend on specific facts and applicable law. For advice regarding a particular situation, consult a qualified attorney.