Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D.N.J.: Football player’s NIL antitrust suit against Rutgers barred by statute of limitations, (Jul 27, 2026)

By Steven Melendez

There were no allegations of continuous violations that would make the lawsuit timely.

The New Jersey federal district court dismissed without prejudice a former college football player’s antitrust lawsuit against Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, for alleged uncompensated use of his name, image, and likeness (NIL) while he played college football from September 2012 to May 2016, finding the lawsuit barred by the statute of limitations. The court found potential tolling during the House v. National Collegiate Athletic Association case came too late and that the player failed to allege continuous violations that would make the lawsuit timely (Carroo v. Rutgers, The State University Of New Jersey, No. 2:25-cv-17059-CCC-JSA (D.N.J. Jul. 24, 2026)).

Background. The former player sued alleging Rutgers made “unauthorized and uncompensated” use of his NIL while he played football for Rutgers. He alleged Rutgers profited from using his NIL to sell merchandise and football tickets and he was not paid for such use.

He initially brought suit on October 2, 2025 in the New Jersey state court with claims alleging violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, as well as misappropriation of NIL rights and unjust enrichment under state law. Rutgers removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing the claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

Statute of limitations. The antitrust claims are subject to a four-year statute of limitations, while the unjust enrichment and misappropriation of NIL claims are subject to a six-year period, according to the ruling.

Since the player does not allege violations after May 2016, he therefore would have been required to bring his antitrust claims by May 2020 and his unjust enrichment and misappropriation claims by May 2022, according to the court. But he alleged that the statute of limitations were equitably tolled under the American Pipe doctrine, which provides tolling of a statute of limitations for putative class members’ individual claims, thanks to the class action lawsuit House v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. But the complaint in the House case was filed on June 15, 2020, after the statute of limitations on the player’s claims already ran out in May 2020, according to the ruling.

The player also alleged that his claims are permitted under the continuing violations doctrine, which allows for antitrust suits if anti-competitive acts within the four-year statute of limitations are related to the violations outside that period. However, the complaint does not allege violations beyond May 2016, according to the court. Claims in an opposition brief that Rutgers continued to use his NIL “in hallways, on merchandise, in marketing” for years afterward were not included in the complaint and cannot be considered for purposes of the motion to dismiss, the judge ruled. Similar arguments about the state law claims also can’t be considered, according to the ruling.

The court granted the player leave to file an amended complaint addressing the statute of limitation issues within 30 days.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-17059-CCC-JSA.

Judge: Cecchi, C.

Attorneys: Charles Z. Schalk (Savo, Schalk, Corsini, Warner, Gillespie, O’Grodnick & Fisher, P.A) for Leonte Carroo. William P. Deni, Jr. (FBT Gibbons LLP) for Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

Companies: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Cases: Antitrust NewJerseyNews