NCAA Division III Scholarship Lawsuit, Athletes Sue Over the Ban on Athletic Scholarships (Printz v. NCAA)

Three current and former college athletes have sued the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), arguing that its ban on athletic scholarships at Division III schools is illegal price fixing under federal antitrust law. The putative class action, Printz v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 2:26-cv-12448, was filed on October 23, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles.

Nothing has been decided. The court has not certified a class, ruled on the NCAA’s liability, or announced a settlement.

Quick Answer: What Printz v. NCAA Means for Division III Athletes Right Now

• Can Division III schools offer athletic scholarships today? No. NCAA Division III Bylaw 15.01.3 is still in force.
• Can I get money from this lawsuit? Not now. There is no settlement, claim form or deadline, and no class has been certified.
• Who might be covered if a class is certified? The proposed damages class is people who competed on an NCAA Division III varsity team from October 21, 2022 through the date of judgment. A separate proposed injunctive class covers current and future Division III athletes while the case is pending.
• What should I do? Nothing is required. Be wary of anyone offering to “enroll” you in a payout.

Printz v. NCAA: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case name	Connor Printz, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
Case number	2:26-cv-12448
Court	U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Filed	October 23, 2026
Plaintiffs	Connor Printz, Chris Jennings and Jackson Hale
Defendant	National Collegiate Athletic Association
Rule challenged	NCAA Division III Bylaw 15.01.3
Main law	Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
Relief sought	Declaration that the rule is unlawful, a permanent injunction, treble damages, fees and costs
Proposed damages class	People who competed on an NCAA Division III varsity team from October 21, 2022 through the date of judgment
Proposed injunctive class	People who currently compete, or will compete while the case is pending, on a Division III team
Class status	Putative class action. No class has been certified.
Plaintiffs’ lawyers named in coverage	Andrew Purdy (Brown Neri Smith & Khan), Michael Goldberg (Arrowblue), Christine Brown (Christine Brown Sports Law), Matt Strauser (Burns Charest)
Settlement or claim form	None

You can read the filed complaint (PDF). The assigned judge was not identified in the sources reviewed, so check the docket.

What the Division III Scholarship Lawsuit Against the NCAA Claims

Division I and Division II schools can give athletic scholarships. Division III schools cannot. Bylaw 15.01.3 bars a member school from awarding financial aid based on athletic leadership, ability, participation or performance. Division III athletes can still get need-based aid, academic scholarships, federal aid and work-study on the same terms as other students.

The plaintiffs say the rule is not a neutral amateurism principle but an agreement among more than 400 competing colleges not to bid for athletes with athletic aid. They describe it as fixing the price of Division III athletic labor at zero. That is the plaintiffs’ characterization, not a court finding.

The NCAA has long described the lack of athletic scholarships as a core principle of Division III, meaning athletics should not be financially rewarded the way academic achievement is. According to Reuters on October 26, 2026, no attorney had yet appeared for the NCAA. Check the docket for later filings.

Who Filed Printz v. NCAA?

Connor Printz: basketball at Claremont McKenna

Printz graduated from Claremont McKenna College in May 2024 and played guard for the Claremont-Mudd-Scripps men’s basketball team. The complaint says several Division III schools recruited him, including NYU, Washington University in St. Louis, the University of Chicago, Amherst and Williams, and that he received no athletic scholarship. Published tuition, fees, room and board for 2022–2023 totaled $79,427.22, and he borrowed heavily to attend.

The complaint says Printz earned about $50,000 from endorsements and social-media content, including deals involving Reebok and Clif Bar, and left the team early in the 2023–24 season to focus on that business. He alleges a meaningful partial scholarship would have kept him playing through his senior year. The point is that a brand could pay him, but his own school could not put money toward his tuition because he played.

Chris Jennings: swimming and lacrosse at the University of Lynchburg

Jennings competed in lacrosse and swimming at Lynchburg from 2019 to 2023, earning his bachelor’s degree in May 2022 and an MBA in May 2024. The complaint says no athletic scholarship was awarded, and cites about $53,048.23 in tuition, fees, room and board for his final season. After his eligibility ended, he became a graduate-assistant swim coach with aid covering about half his tuition. The plaintiffs use that contrast to argue the school could provide aid in another role but not for his athletic services.

Jackson Hale: football at Pacific Lutheran University

Hale is a senior biology major and football captain at Pacific Lutheran in Tacoma, Washington, who has played since 2023. He seeks to represent current and future athletes in the injunctive class, and the plaintiffs argue athletic leadership cannot be rewarded with aid even though non-athletic leadership can.

These allegations are unproven. Whether any school would have offered aid, how much, and whether the rule caused recoverable losses are all disputed issues.

Which Athletes Could Be Covered by the Printz v. NCAA Class Action?

The class definitions are proposals only. The court has not approved them.

• Proposed damages class: All people who, from October 21, 2022 through the date of judgment, competed on an NCAA Division III varsity intercollegiate team. The class period is open-ended, so it keeps running until judgment. The complaint excludes NCAA officers, directors and employees, the judge and court staff, and counsel of record.
• Proposed injunctive class: All people who currently compete, or will compete while the case is pending, on a Division III team.

The complaint estimates about 175,390 athletes compete in Division III in a single academic year, so a multi-year damages class could be very large. Some coverage that cites the NCAA puts the figure closer to 210,000. Being within a proposed definition does not mean the court recognizes a right to money.

Which Laws Apply in Printz v. NCAA?

Sherman Antitrust Act Section 1, 15 U.S.C. § 1

Section 1 prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain trade. The plaintiffs say the scholarship ban is a horizontal agreement among competing buyers of athletic services. This is an antitrust theory, not a claim that athletes are legally employees. See 15 U.S.C. § 1.

The complaint offers alternative ways to analyze the rule: as per se illegal price fixing, under an abbreviated “quick look” review, or under the full Rule of Reason, which weighs market effects, market power, procompetitive justifications and less restrictive alternatives. A key question is whether the court treats the ban as straightforward price fixing or examines its asserted benefits in detail.

Clayton Act Section 4, 15 U.S.C. § 15

Section 4 lets a person injured by an antitrust violation recover three times the damages sustained, plus costs and attorney’s fees. That is why the plaintiffs seek treble damages. It does not mean athletes get three times their tuition, and the plaintiffs must prove antitrust injury and a method for measuring damages. See 15 U.S.C. § 15.

Clayton Act Section 16, 15 U.S.C. § 26

Section 16 allows injunctive relief against threatened antitrust harm. The plaintiffs ask the court to bar the NCAA from enforcing the rule. Even if they win, schools would not be required to offer scholarships. See 15 U.S.C. § 26.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23

The damages class relies on Rule 23(b)(3), which requires common questions to predominate and a class action to be superior to other methods. The injunctive class relies on Rule 23(b)(2). The NCAA may argue athletes across different sports, schools and financial situations cannot be represented together because each athlete’s hypothetical scholarship value differs. Class certification is a separate decision from whether the plaintiffs state a claim.

Four-year limitations period, 15 U.S.C. § 15b

Private antitrust damages claims generally face a four-year limitations period. The October 21, 2022 start date is a proposed class definition, not a ruling on who can recover. The court may need to address limitations as the case moves forward.

Title IX and athletic scholarships

Title IX is not a claim in the complaint. But if Division III schools could award athletic aid, they would still have to comply with 34 C.F.R. § 106.37(c), which requires reasonable opportunities for athletic awards for each sex in proportion to participation. For an example of a Title IX athletic aid dispute, see $300K SDSU Title IX Athletic Aid Settlement, File A Claim.

Why NCAA v. Alston Matters to the Division III Lawsuit

In National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021), the Supreme Court ruled 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch, that NCAA limits on certain education-related benefits are subject to ordinary antitrust review under the Rule of Reason. The NCAA cannot avoid that scrutiny just by calling its rules part of amateurism.

The plaintiffs rely on that framework. But Alston did not decide that Division III must offer scholarships or strike down every NCAA compensation rule. The question in Printz is whether this particular restriction violates antitrust law on the evidence presented. Read the Alston opinion.

Rock v. NCAA: The 2013 Ruling the Plaintiffs Must Overcome

In 2013, a federal court in Indiana decided Rock v. NCAA, 928 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (S.D. Ind. 2013), and dismissed an antitrust challenge to the Division III athletic-aid ban. The court treated the ban as presumptively procompetitive, reasoning that it preserved Division III’s non-scholarship model and that schools could choose other divisions if they wanted to offer athletic aid.

That ruling predates Alston, and it is not binding on the California court. But the NCAA may rely on its reasoning. The plaintiffs argue the market has changed since then, pointing to NIL arrangements and athletic aid in other systems.

What Is the Relevant Market in Printz v. NCAA?

The plaintiffs define the market as a nationwide market for Division III athletic services, where schools compete to recruit and retain athletes. They argue Division III is not a perfect substitute for Division I, Division II or NAIA programs, and that the NCAA and its members have monopsony power, meaning coordinated buyers with significant power over suppliers.

They point to schools such as Johns Hopkins and Rochester Institute of Technology, which can give athletic aid in Division I sports while their Division III teams cannot. The NCAA can challenge the market definition, market power and the claim that scholarships would have been offered. These questions may require expert evidence.

What Happens Next in Printz v. NCAA?

The case is at its earliest stage. The NCAA is likely to respond with a motion to dismiss. If the case continues, the parties may litigate the market, antitrust injury, the justification for the rule and class certification. The plaintiffs must win class certification before proceeding for the broader classes. No trial date or settlement has been reported.

What Printz v. NCAA Means for Division III Athletes and Families

• Today: Nothing changes. Division III schools still cannot offer athletic scholarships, and aid packages are unchanged.
• If the plaintiffs win an injunction: Schools would likely be allowed to offer athletic aid, not required to. Any money would come from athletic budgets.
• If a class is certified and damages are awarded: Athletes in the class could potentially receive money. That is far from certain and likely years away.

Families should keep comparing academic scholarships, need-based aid and federal aid, and ask each school’s financial-aid office about renewal conditions and costs that remain the family’s responsibility.

How Printz v. NCAA Compares With Other NCAA Athlete Lawsuits

These cases involve different facts and legal theories, and their outcomes do not decide Printz. Joey Aguilar Lawsuit, JUCO QB Fights NCAA (2026) challenges NCAA eligibility limits affecting former junior college athletes. Diego Pavia Lawsuit, Court Ruling Grants Extra Eligibility, Class Action Expands To Change NCAA Rules is another antitrust challenge to NCAA eligibility rules in the wake of Alston.

Printz v. NCAA: Frequently Asked Questions

What is the NCAA Division III scholarship lawsuit?

It is a putative class action alleging that the NCAA’s ban on athletic scholarships at Division III schools violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Who filed Printz v. NCAA?

Connor Printz, Chris Jennings and Jackson Hale, filed October 23, 2026.

Can Division III schools give athletic scholarships right now?

No. Bylaw 15.01.3 still bars aid based on athletic ability, participation, performance or leadership. Qualifying academic and need-based aid is allowed.

Does the lawsuit mean athletes will get money?

No. The plaintiffs seek damages, but none has been awarded, and the court must decide the claims and class certification first.

Is there a claim form or deadline in the NCAA Division III case?

No. It is a pending lawsuit, not a settlement.

Which athletes are in the proposed Printz v. NCAA class?

The proposed damages class covers people who competed on a Division III varsity team from October 21, 2022 through the date of judgment. The proposed injunctive class covers current and future Division III athletes while the case is pending. Neither has been certified.

How does NCAA v. Alston affect Printz v. NCAA?

Alston confirmed NCAA compensation-related rules face antitrust review, but it did not decide the legality of the Division III scholarship ban.

What is the biggest legal obstacle in Printz v. NCAA?

The 2013 Rock v. NCAA decision, which dismissed a similar challenge. It is not binding on the California court.

Will every Division III school have to offer scholarships if the plaintiffs win?

No. The requested injunction would stop the NCAA from enforcing the rule. Schools would decide for themselves, subject to other rules including Title IX.

What to Know About the NCAA Division III Scholarship Lawsuit

Printz v. NCAA challenges the rule that prevents Division III colleges from awarding scholarships based on athletic ability. The plaintiffs say it is an unlawful agreement among competing colleges and seek treble damages and an injunction. The case has only just begun, no class has been certified, and no claim process exists. The existing policy remains in force.

Official and Primary Sources

1. Filed Complaint, Printz v. NCAA, No. 2:26-cv-12448
2. Reuters, NCAA Division III Athletes Sue Over Ban on Athletic Scholarships (Oct. 26, 2026)
3. NCAA Division III Eligibility and Financial-Aid Policy
4. 15 U.S.C. § 1
5. 15 U.S.C. § 15
6. 15 U.S.C. § 26
7. NCAA v. Alston, 594 U.S. 69 (2021)
8. Rock v. NCAA, 928 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (S.D. Ind. 2013)
9. 34 C.F.R. § 106.37

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is a legal information website, not a law firm. The allegations have not been established by a final judgment. For questions about your own situation, consult a qualified attorney.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the filed complaint in Printz v. NCAA, No. 2:26-cv-12448 (C.D. Cal.), Reuters’ October 26, 2026 report, NCAA published materials, and the cited statutes and court decisions, as of October 27, 2026. Last Updated: October 27, 2026.