Shields v. Federation Internationale de Natation

Background

Thomas A. Shields and Katinka Hosszú, professional swimmers, brought federal antitrust claims and a state-law tort claim against World Aquatics, formerly known as the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA). The claims concerned World Aquatics’ control over international swimming competitions. The Ninth Circuit had reversed an earlier grant of summary judgment for the defendant. The parties later stipulated to certification of a damages class and reached a classwide settlement.

The court considered the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary approval. Preliminary approval is an initial court review that allows notice to be sent to class members; it is not the final decision on whether the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

Settlement classes and relief

The agreement identifies three settlement classes:

World Aquatics will pay $4,627,084 in settlement damages: $1,127,084 for the 2018 damages class and $3,500,000 for the 2019 damages class. Payments will be distributed pro rata, meaning in shares based on the damages-allocation method described in the plaintiffs’ expert reports. The calculation considers what each swimmer would have earned in prize money and appearance fees absent the alleged anticompetitive conduct. Court-approved attorney fees, costs, proposed service awards, and taxes will be deducted before distribution.

The agreement also provides injunctive relief. It bars restrictions on a swimmer’s participation in sanctioned events, bars World Aquatics from maintaining or enforcing rules that restrict independent swimming events, and bars penalties for participation in those events. Results from independent events must be recognized in World Aquatics’ official results, provided they comply with specified competition regulations.

The damages classes release claims that were or could have been raised in this action concerning the alleged group boycott and prevention of swimmers from participating in professional competitions and earning appearance fees and prize money. The release includes related federal and state antitrust and other listed claims.

Preliminary class certification and settlement review

The court had already certified an injunctive-relief class and a damages class. It found that the settlement’s slight change to the injunctive-relief class definition—from the period ending at trial to the period ending on August 29, 2025—was immaterial. The court therefore granted preliminary approval of the settlement classes.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the court evaluated whether it was likely able to certify the settlement classes for judgment and approve the settlement. The court found that the settlement followed six years of litigation, extensive discovery, more than two dozen depositions, expert damages models, settlement conferences, and mediations. It concluded that the negotiations appeared serious, informed, and non-collusive.

The court found no apparent preferential treatment of particular class members or the named plaintiffs. The named plaintiffs intended to request $10,000 service awards each, but the court deferred ruling on whether those awards were appropriate until final approval.

The court found the settlement within the possible range of approval. It considered the $4,627,084 payment, the injunctive relief, the plaintiffs’ estimated damages, and the risks and costs of continued antitrust litigation. It also found no obvious deficiencies. The court preliminarily found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate and granted preliminary approval.

Notice and objections

The approved notice plan requires email notice to identified damages-class members, followed by postcard notice and social-media outreach when necessary. The notice directs class members to a settlement website containing detailed information and an estimate of an individual settlement award after identity verification.

The court found the revised notices adequate after the plaintiffs addressed concerns about explaining the allocation of costs between the separately agreed injunctive-relief payment and fees sought from the damages fund. The court determined that a second opportunity to opt out was not required because notice had been provided less than six months earlier and two damages-class members had opted out.

Attorney fees and case schedule

The settlement provides for a $3,000,000 injunctive-relief fee and expense award. Plaintiffs may also seek fees and costs for resolving the damages claims, and the motion and notice indicated that plaintiffs intended to seek 25 percent of the damages settlement fund. The court required a fee motion with declarations, detailed billing information, a lodestar analysis, and information about costs and the separately agreed injunctive-relief fees. The court did not finally decide those requests in this order.

Disposition

The court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement. It provisionally certified the three classes for settlement purposes, conditionally appointed Thomas A. Shields and Katinka Hosszú as class representatives, conditionally appointed Winston & Strawn LLP as class counsel, appointed Verita Global, LLC as settlement administrator, and approved the notice schedule. Plaintiffs were required to file a motion for final approval by February 5, 2026. The final approval hearing was set for February 26, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.