Williamson Wins Again: $686K Attorney Fee Award Sends a Warning to Sports Agents

Background 

The legal battle between NBA star Zion Williamson and his former marketing agency, Prime Sports Marketing LLC, began in 2019 when Williamson filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The dispute arose from a five-year marketing representation agreement that Williamson had signed with Prime and its CEO, Gina Ford, while he was a freshman at Duke University, shortly after declaring for the NBA draft. Williamson terminated the agreement roughly a month after signing it, subsequently retaining CAA for both marketing and player representation. 

The main dispute in the case was about the North Carolina Uniform Athlete Agents Act (UAAA). Williams’ “agent,” Ford, was not actually registered as an athlete agent in North Carolina at the time the agreement was executed, and the contract itself lacked the disclosures and warnings required under state law. Williamson sought a declaratory judgment that the contract was void. Prime counterclaimed, seeking $100 million in damages and asserting claims including civil conspiracy and misappropriation of trade secrets. Prime argued, among other things, that a compilation of endorsement offers Ford had assembled constituted protectable trade secrets. 

U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs ruled in Williamson’s favor, finding he was a protected student-athlete under the UAAA and that Prime’s failure to comply with the Act rendered the contract void. Prime appealed, but in May 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision entirely, including rejecting the trade secrets claim, finding the alleged compilation was too vague to qualify for legal protection. 

The Attorney Fees Award 

On March 31, 2026, Judge Biggs awarded Williamson approximately $686,000 in attorney fees– well short of the nearly $1.5 million his legal team had requested, but a substantial recovery nonetheless. 

The court found that the applicable fee statute, which requires a “complete absence of a justiciable issue,” was satisfied. Judge Biggs reasoned that once the contract was declared void, Prime and Ford should have recognized that their contract-dependent counterclaims were not viable. Instead, they pressed on, filing four separate motions seeking to reverse course, all of which were ultimately rejected. 

The reduction from the requested amount came down to billing rates and hours. Williamson’s legal team included attorneys from several prominent firms, one of whom billed at $800 per hour out of New York City. Judge Biggs found those rates unreasonable for a case centered on the interpretation of a North Carolina statute, which she characterized as not particularly complex. She concluded that hourly rates of $250-$275 for associates and $475-525 for partners were more appropriate. She also trimmed a significant number of billed hours for duplicative entries and intra-team communications. 

The Broader Lesson: NIL and Agent Litigation is Costly 

The Williamson case is significant beyond its outcome, as it provides some of the rare judicial analysis of a state athlete agent law. State agent laws exist in most states but rarely receive appellate scrutiny. The Fourth Circuit’s decision offers important guidance– regardless of what an agent technically labels its role, what matters legally is what they actually do on behalf of the athlete. Soliciting or negotiating endorsement deals is typically enough to trigger registration and disclosure requirements under state law. 

Critically, most states treat NIL and marketing agents the same as professional player agents under their respective athlete agent statutes. The federal athlete agent law similarly draws no distinction. Agents who fail to comply risk not only having a void contract but also potential civil and criminal penalties depending on the jurisdiction. 

The fee award in this case is an illustration of how expensive this litigation can become. Even after winning at every stage, Williamson’s legal costs spanned years and involved multiple law firms. For agents, the takeaway is that compliance with athlete agent registration and contract requirements is not optional, and the cost of getting it wrong can be enormous. 

Sources 

Ganesh Setty, NBA Star Gets $686K In Fees For Ex-Agent Contract Fight, Law 360 (Mar. 31, 2026). 

Joshua Frieser, Zion Williamson Wins Appellate Case Against Former Agent, Frieser Legal (2026).