Case Update: Antitrust Lawsuit Filed against NHL & CHL

In 2024, two major junior hockey players filed an antitrust lawsuit against the National Hockey League (“NHL”) and Canadian Hockey League (“CHL”). The proposed class action was brought by two junior hockey players, Tanner Gould and Isaiah DiLaura.^[1]

The lawsuit alleges that “[t]he National Hockey League, the Canadian Hockey League and three junior leagues have conspired to restrain competition by limiting opportunities for players age 16 to 20, who only have a brief window of time to compete in major junior hockey.”^[2]

Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the leagues from “enforcing an ‘oppressive’ rule that limits where the athletes can play.”^[3] According to plaintiff’s attorney, “[t]eenage hockey players have been locked into a system where they have no freedom to choose the Major Junior team best suited to their development, or to get out of abusive or exploitive environments.”^[4]

The dispute specifically involves a provision of a rule, agreed upon by the leagues, which assigns a “protected geographic territory” to each league.^[5] Under the provision, players are “not allowed to play for clubs outside their designated league.”^[6]

In February of 2025, both the NHL and the CHL [HD1] filed motions to dismiss the case, arguing that “[n]either Gould nor DiLaura was drafted to the NHL or assigned by an NHL club to their CHL team.”^[7] Furthermore, the NHL argued that plaintiffs “alleged injuries were incurred during the early stage of their junior careers, with no involvement from the NHL.”^[8]

The CHL argued in its [HD2] motion to dismiss that the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act “limits the application of the U.S. antitrust laws on foreign conduct” and stated that the act bars the claims against it.^[9] The CHL wrote that the claims “involve foreign commerce that does not have direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effects on U.S. commerce” and thus, the case belongs in Canada.^[10]

The case took a new turn this past Friday, March 21^st, during a hearing in Seattle when plaintiff’s counsel argued that “the leagues conspired on both sides of the border to restrain competition in the labor market by restricting where the junior athletes can play.”^[11]

U.S. District Judge Tana Lin heard arguments from both sides on their motions to dismiss and expressed skepticism as to whether plaintiffs had the right players for this case. “The fact remains that they weren’t ever drafted. So do you just have the wrong plaintiffs for this case?”^[12]

Time will tell how Judge Lin rules on the motions to dismiss. The NHL believes that the plaintiffs failed to allege a direct injury, while plaintiffs continue to argue that the NHL-CHL conspiracy restricted the freedom of player movement. ^[13]

^[1] https://www.law360.com/articles/2285765

^[2]Id.

^[3] Id.

^[4] Id.

^[5] Id.

^[6] Id.

^[7] https://www.law360.com/articles/2298149

^[8] Id.

^[9] Id.

^[10] Id.

^[11] Id.

^[12] Id.