CBA Record January-February 2024

combined economic value of over $3.3 million. Over 70% of the total number of liens during this period were placed on properties owned by individuals, whereas only 28% were placed on business-owned properties. Nonetheless, the total debt value was largely owed by businesses rather than individuals: business owed 77% of the $3.3 million in lien-eligible debt, whereas individuals owed only 23%. These disparities suggest that individu als are being disproportionately burdened by government liens despite owing a relatively small portion of the total lien eligible debt compared to businesses.

However, potential explanations for these disparities include the higher number of properties owned by individuals, lower triggers for “lien-eligible” property for individuals, and enforcement agencies’ subjective conception of business debt as being less morally objectionable than individual debt. These disparities may be ameliorated by more objective lien imposition stan dards. For example, rules mandating spe cific dates after which a debtor is deemed delinquent would help standardize the lien imposition process. Objective stan dards provide a better informational basis

for making lien imposition decisions; as such, the decision to impose a lien should be based on first-hand observations on what the debtor has done, rather than subjective projections of future behavior. Further, the state should standardize its response to delinquency, so the debtor receives notice when the debt owed reaches a pre-determined threshold of the debtor’s in-state property value (10%, 25%, 50%, etc.). This standardized response could help ensure objective, equitable treatment of individual and business debtors that is both economically sound while respecting constitutional rights. the deal be used to induce a student-ath lete to enroll in a particular school or be based on athletic performance. Because the Illinois NIL statute gives student-athletes the right to compensa tion for use of their name, image, and likeness, they must protect the value of their IP by registering it under copyright and trademark laws. And student-athletes must receive permission from their school – and pay fair market value to the school – if they are going to use their school’s reg istered IP in their own promotions. Illinois’ NIL statute makes clear that student-athletes do not have claims for damages for tortious interference, unfair trade, or competition against their edu cational institutions unless it pertains to Title IX of the Education Amendments. Therefore, potential liability must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Damages are available if a third party breaches the licensing agreement, but not if the breach ing party is an educational institution. The article also points out that the three main claims available to student-athletes are violation of the Illinois Publicity Stat ute, breach of contract, and fraud.

Survey of Illinois Law: Illinois Name, Image & Likeness Statute and Three Reasons Why Athletes Must Become Educated in Business to Properly Monetize on Their Celebrity by Sivonnia DeBarros, 46 S. ILL. U. LJ 689 (2022) Reviewed by Adam Voortman, 3L at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

The advent of Name, Image, and Like ness (NIL) legislation has dramatically transformed the world of college sports, as players can now be compensated for their revenue-generating abilities. How ever, student-athletes can find it difficult to comply with NIL laws. This article describes recent Illinois legislation on the subject and warns student-athletes to pay close attention to the law to maximize their earning potential. Before NIL legislation, student-ath letes could only receive scholarship ben efits and were not allowed to accept gifts from agents or boosters, according to the National Collegiate Athletic Association. In 2014, former and current college ath letes filed a class action against the NCAA for antitrust violations, arguing that the arrangement was a restraint on trade. After prolonged litigation, the Supreme Court ruled in June 2021 that the NCAA

violated the Sherman Act, clearing the way for student-athletes to receive previ ously unallowed benefits. Shortly after ward, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed the Student-Athlete Endorsement Rights Act, which allows student-ath letes to profit from their name, image, and likeness. The three most significant areas of this complex law that student athletes must understand are its contract and intellectual property provisions, and whom the student-athlete can hold liable for damages. Regarding contracts, the NIL legisla tion dictates that student-athletes can only enter into NIL licensing contracts with third parties, not with the universi ties themselves. These contracts must be in writing and disclosed to the student athlete’s educational institution. Crucially, the student-athlete cannot enter into a deal before enrolling in a school, nor can

Issue Spotting and Practice Tips in Adoption February 8, 2024 | 2:00-5:00 p.m. | 2.75 IL MCLE Credit | Live Webcast $0 CLE-Advantage Plan | $95 Member | $185 Nonmember | Register at Learn.ChicagoBar.org

40 JanuaryFebruary 2024