Opening the Courtroom Door: Hayden Richardson Drops TVPRA Case Against Northwestern, But Unlocks Potential Civil Remedy for Exploited College Athletes

By: Julia Smith*                                                                               Posted: 11/21/2024

In the wake of recent turmoil surrounding the employment status and NIL protections of collegiate athletes, concerns regarding the risk of student-athlete exploitation are higher than ever.[1]  In 2021, former Northwestern cheerleader, Hayden Richardson, shed a spotlight on this issue after suing the university for claims related to labor and sex trafficking.[2]  The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois sided with Richardson and found that she successfully pleaded her factual allegations.[3]  Although the case was voluntarily dismissed by Richardson in August, its decision paves the way for future cases involving college athletes seeking redress for instances of exploitation.[4]  

Background on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA)

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 is the first comprehensive anti-human trafficking legislation enacted in the United States and has since been reauthorized several times.[5]  The TVPA imposes criminal liability for forced labor, forced-labor trafficking, and sex trafficking.[6]  In 2003, Congress amended the statute to include a civil-liability provision through the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).[7]  The structure of the TVPRA ensured that the civil remedy was coextensive with the criminal violations incorporated within the Act.[8]  During this time, the TVPRA provided a civil remedy for trafficking victims in federal courts against direct traffickers.[9]  Five years after the first reauthorization, Congress expanded the scope of civil liability to provide a remedy against, not only immediate perpetrators, but also those who knowingly benefit from participation in a venture involved in forced labor and human trafficking.[10]

The TVPRA’s negligence standard imposes liability for corporate negligence towards sex trafficking within business operations and forced labor in supply chains.[11]  Some of the most common civil suits brought under the statute are those brought against the hospitality industry as a way to hold hotels accountable for the financial benefits they reap from plaintiffs’ sex trafficking victimization.[12]  However, the litigation landscape recently shifted, after a former Northwestern University cheerleader filed suit against the school, marking the first case in which the TVPRA was applied against an educational institution and its actors.[13]

The District Court’s Decision

In 2021, Hayden Richardson filed suit against Northwestern, alleging forced labor and sex trafficking under the TVPRA.[14]  Richardson contended that she and her teammates were repeatedly subjected to sexual assault and harassment at alumni donor events.[15]  She further alleged that Northwestern ignored her concerns, despite alerting multiple school personnel.[16]  The main crux of the suit, however, lied within the “Spirit Squad” contract that all cheerleaders were required to sign during the preseason.[17]  The contract stated that students were responsible for repaying their scholarships and other team-related expenses if they resigned from the team.[18]  These factual allegations laid the basis for Richardson’s TVPRA claims.[19]

Richardson’s claim lodged against Northwestern University asserted that she was forced to perform services for the school by attending donor events and feared financial harm if she did not attend.[20]  Moreover, Richardson alleged that the university violated the sex trafficking provision of the TVPRA because fans and donors were allowed to engage in sex acts with the cheerleaders during these events in exchange for financial support of the university and the athletic department.[21]  Finally, Richardson stated that the university knowingly benefited from the cheerleaders’ participation in donor events and, thus, should be held civilly liable.[22] 

In a groundbreaking decision, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Northwestern’s motions to dismiss Richardson’s TVPRA claims.[23]  The court reasoned that Richardson pleaded sufficient facts to allege that the university and its employees were criminally and civilly liable under the TVPRA.[24]  Although Richardson decided to voluntarily drop the case, the court’s holding established a creative avenue for college athletes seeking redress for instances of exploitation.[25]

Potential Impact of Richardson

While the decision in Richardson v. Northwestern University[26] was not a judgment on the facts, the court’s acknowledgement of the validity of Richardson’s claims speaks volumes.[27]  Most notably, the court’s holding on the civil liability portion of Richardson’s complaint could cause an uptick in litigation brought by student athletes against universities and their athletics departments.[28]  In the current legal sphere, universities could be especially susceptible to TVPRA civil suits, as educational institutions rake in millions of dollars a year through athletic contracts and student-athlete performance.[29]  Specifically, Richardson could set valuable precedent for collegiate players in antitrust suits who fall victim to bad business contracts.[30]

Recent changes to NIL policies have drastically altered the recruitment process, allowing student-athletes to profit from their NIL and to hire agents for NIL negotiations.[31]  As a result, the majority of students benefiting from the new rules are making agreements without any legal assistance from their schools or otherwise.[32]  This leads many young athletes to sign away their intellectual property (IP) rights and agree to contracts that make it financially impossible for them to transfer or leave their team.[33]  Accordingly, similar to the Spirit Squad contract in Richardson, universities that knowingly benefit from these unjust NIL deals could be held civilly liable under the TVPRA.[34]

To combat the rise in exploitation amongst young athletes, NIL agents need to be better regulated and prepared.[35]  Since college athletes now have the power to appoint their own representatives, it is imperative that agents have a strong understanding of various NIL regulations, including knowledge of state NIL laws, NCAA rules, and individual university policies.[36]  Additionally, athletic departments and university administrations must perform robust due diligence on third parties seeking to enter into NIL deals with student-athletes.[37]  While academic institutions are restricted from providing legal advice to students while they are seeking out NIL deals, universities and colleges still have the final approval over proposed contracts between a student-athlete and a third party.[38]  Not only would due diligence help shield players from exploitative contract provisions, but also mitigate the university’s potential liability.[39]  In a post-Richardson world, the hope is that college athletes who experience exploitation can have better access to justice and universities are held accountable for taking advantage of players who are only looking to reap the benefits of the sports that they love.[40]

*Staff Writer, Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal, J.D. Candidate, May 2025, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law

[1] See, e.g., Kit Ramgopal, Kenzi Abou-Save & Gabe Gutierrez, ‘There’s No Rules. It’s Crazy’: New Money in NCAA Recruiting Leaves Elite Athletes Ripe for Exploitation, NBC News (Nov. 27, 2022, 8:00 AM), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/star-high-school-athletes-can-now-profit-nil-deals-rcna51075 (arguing that NCAA’s decision to remove restrictions on college athlete profitability increase risk of students being exploited by adults and institutions that want to make money off their skills).

[2] See Elyssa Cherney, Cheerleader Sues Northwestern University Says She Was Groped and Harassed by Drunken Fans and That Officials Tried to Cover Up Her Complaint, Chi. Trib. (Jan. 31, 2021, 10:22 PM), https://www.chicagotribune.com/2021/01/31/cheerleader-sues-northwestern-university-says-she-was-groped-and-harassed-by-drunken-fans-and-that-officials-tried-to-cover-up-her-complaints-lawsuit-alleges/ (explaining how Richardson filed suit against Northwestern University for forced labor and human trafficking claims).

[3] See Richardson v. Nw. Univ., No. 1:21-CV-00522, 2023 WL 6197447, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2023) (holding that plaintiff adequately pleaded forced labor and sex trafficking claims).

[4] See Jonah Meadows, Why Did Ex-Cheerleader Hayden Richardson Drop Sex Trafficking Suit Against Northwestern?, Patch (Aug. 30, 2024, 2:46 PM), https://patch.com/illinois/evanston/why-did-northwestern-cheerleader-hayden-richardson-drop-her-lawsuit (explaining how Richardson voluntarily dismissed claims against all defendants because of discovery issues).

[5] See Human Trafficking: Key Legislation, U.S. Dep’t. of Just., https://www.justice.gov/humantrafficking/key-legislation#:~:text=The%20Trafficking%20Victims%20Protection%20Act%20of%202000%20(TVPA)%2C%20Pub,of%20slavery%20domestically%20and%20internationally (last visited Oct. 19, 2024) (describing statute which allows human trafficking victims to file criminal and civil lawsuits against their traffickers in federal district court).  

[6] See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589–91 (establishing criminal liability for instances of forced labor, forced-labor trafficking, and human trafficking).

[7] See Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-193, 117 Stat. 2875 (codified as amended at 22 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq.) (amending TVPA to allow trafficking victims to bring civil action for actual damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and other litigation costs reasonably incurred).  

[8] See Richardson, 2023 WL 6197447, at *8 (explaining plaintiff’s argument that because defendants allegedly violated underlying criminal statutes, they are allegedly liable under civil provision).

[9] See id. at *7 (stating that early versions of TVPRA only imposed civil liability against direct trafficker of victims).

[10] See 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a) (“[W]hoever knowingly benefits, or attempts to benefit, financially or by receiving anything of value from participation in a venture which that person knew or should have known has engaged in an act in violation of this chapter.”) (emphasis added).

[11] See Using Civil Litigation to Combat Human Trafficking, Hum. Trafficking Legal Ctr. 16–17 (2021), https://htlegalcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Civil-Litigation-2021-Data-Update.pdf (finding that approximately 72.2% of federal civil trafficking cases have included at least one corporate defendant).

[12] See Meghan Poole, Beyond Hospitality: Hotel Liability for Trafficking, Hum. Trafficking Inst. (Jan. 24, 2019), https://traffickinginstitute.org/beyond-hospitality-hotel-liability-for-trafficking/ (explaining that hotel can be held liable to survivor if employee rents room to trafficker or buyer and employee knew or should have known that hotel room would be used for commercial sex act).

[13] See Jacob Wendler, Judge Allows Sex Trafficking Claim Against NU Cheer to Proceed, Daily Nw. (Sept. 24, 2023), https://dailynorthwestern.com/2023/09/24/campus/judge-allows-sex-trafficking-claim-against-nu-cheer-to-proceed/ (explaining that Richardson sued Northwestern University after leaders of athletics department facilitated instances of sexual assault and harassment at sporting events).

[14] See Richardson v. Nw. Univ., No. 1:21-CV-00522, 2023 WL 6197447, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2023) (alleging that defendants violated bans against forced labor and human trafficking under TVPRA).

[15] See id. at *2–3 (alleging that plaintiff and her teammates were encouraged by head coach to interact with donors who made cheerleaders uncomfortable)

[16] See id. at *4 (contending that plaintiff reported incidents to athletics department leadership in 2019, but formal investigation was delayed and misconduct continued into 2020).

[17] See id. at *6 (“The key allegation rests on the Spirit Squad contracts, the execution of which was a mandatory condition for joining the team.”).

[18] See id. at *2 (explaining that contract stated that if team member quit or was asked to leave team, cheerleader would be required to repay University for cheerleading scholarship, as well as travel, food, equipment, and camp costs).

[19] See Richardson v. Nw. Univ., No. 1:21-CV-00522, 2021 WL 306448, at *5 (N.D. Ill, Jan. 29, 2021) (stating factual allegations for plaintiff’s claims that university violated forced labor and sex trafficking provisions of TVPRA).

[20] See id. at *6 (arguing that defendants allegedly used financially coercive means, including cheerleading contract, to compel plaintiff to attend and perform at tailgating and alumni events); see also Wendler, supra note 13 (explaining that if Richardson did not attend mandatory events and had to leave team, she would have owed Northwestern more than $10,000 for her scholarships and cheer-related expenses).

[21] See Richardson, 2021 WL 306448, at *2–3 (stating that university employees put plaintiff and her peers in situations where they were harassed and assaulted by fans and alumni for purpose of soliciting donations for school).

[22] See id. at *8 (arguing that Northwestern and its employees are liable as knowing beneficiaries of TVPRA violations).

[23] See Jonah Meadows, Northwestern Cheerleader Sex Trafficking Suit Survives Motion to Dismiss, Patch (Sept. 22, 2023, 3:49 PM), https://patch.com/illinois/evanston/northwestern-cheerleader-sex-trafficking-suit-beats-motion-dismiss (explaining that Northwestern’s motion to dismiss TVPRA claim was denied and Richardson’s complaint was assumed to be true at pleadings stage of case).

[24] See Richardson, 2021 WL 306448, at *12 (holding that plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleges forced-labor, forced-labor trafficking, and sex trafficking claims).

[25] See Meadows, supra note 4 (explaining that case was dismissed due to combination of discovery disputes and destruction of key piece of evidence).

[26] Richardson v. Nw. Univ., No. 1:21-CV-00522, 2023 WL 6197447, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2023).

[27] See Meadows, supra note 4 (stating that Richardson was repeatedly attacked by University on her credibility as abuse, harassment, and assaults continued to occur).  

[28] See Using Civil Litigation to Combat Human Trafficking, supra note 11, at 24 (explaining that trajectory of federal trafficking case filings continues to rise).  But see Licha Nyiendo, Lawyers Must Step Up to Combat Human Trafficking, Hum. Rts. First (Jan. 30, 2024), https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/lawyers-must-step-up-to-combat-human-trafficking/ (stating that number of TVPRA cases brought by plaintiffs remains relatively low). 

[29] See NCAA Generates Nearly $1.3 Billion in Revenue for 2022-23, ESPN (Feb. 1, 2024, 9:35 PM), https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/39439274/ncaa-generates-nearly-13-billion-revenue-2022-23 (explaining that NCAA generated approximately $1.3 billion in revenue for 2022-23 fiscal year, more than half of which was distributed back to Division I schools).

[30] See Nicole Sadek & Ronnie Greene, College Athletes Lured by NIL Deals, Exploited by Fine Print, Bloomberg L. (July 18, 2023, 5:08 AM), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/college-athletes-lured-by-nil-deals-exploited-by-fine-print (noting increase in questionable business deals and scams targeting college athletes since they gained new freedom to profit off of NIL deals).

[31] See NCAA v. Alston, 141 S.Ct. 2141, 2166 (2021) (holding that NCAA violated federal antitrust law by limiting education-related benefits schools could offer college athletes).  Following Alston, the NCAA enacted new rules allowing schools to set their own NIL policies.  See Adam R. Bialek & Dara Elpren, Former Collegiate Football Stars Lodge NIL Antitrust Lawsuits Against the NCAA, Among Others, for Retroactive Compensation, Sports Litig. Alert (Nov. 1, 2024), https://sportslitigationalert.com/former-collegiate-football-stars-lodge-nil-antitrust-lawsuits-against-the-ncaa-among-others-for-retroactive-compensation/ (stating that thirty-two states have passed NIL laws).

[32] See Sadek & Greene, supra note 30 (explaining that NCAA prohibits universities from offering legal advice to students navigating NIL deals).

[33] See id. (stating that “forever contracts” require students to sign away IP rights in perpetuity).  A perpetual IP license gives companies the right to use a student’s social media posts forever, meaning that companies can recycle posts without increasing the athletes’ royalties.  See id. (explaining that athletes do not receive increased compensation even if they go pro or their market value rises); see also Ramgopal et al., supra note 1 (describing how there are few guidelines for college athletes entering into high-risk, high-reward NIL deals).  Written offers to young athletes post-Alston include marketing agreements with inordinate commissions of up to forty percent, booster contracts with confusing language and fee structures, and lump sum loans.  See Ramgopal et al., supra note 1 (emphasizing that student-athletes who sign such contracts are restricted from transferring or entering other deals); see also David Lisko & Amanda M. Naldjieff, Blocking and Tackling Human Trafficking in the Sports Industry: How the Sports Industry Can Proactively Address Human Trafficking and Avoid Becoming Civil Litigants, Am. Bar Ass’n (Mar. 11, 2022), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/entertainment_sports/publications/entertainment-sports-lawyer/esl-38-01-winter22/blocking-and-tackling-human-trafficking-the-sports-industryhow-sports-industry-can-proactively/#24 (explaining that exploitative contracts often contain major kickbacks, control over travel or identity documents, and debt-based coercion).

[34] See Richardson v. Nw. Univ., No. 1:21-CV-00522, 2023 WL 6197447, at *8–12 (reasoning that university knowingly benefitted financially in venture which it knew was based on coercive contracts); see also Lisko & Naldjieff, supra note 33 (asserting that institutions within sports industry are generally vulnerable to civil liability under TVPRA due to financial health of industry).

[35] See Bill Carter, The Case for Certifying NIL Agents: Protecting Student Athletes in a New Era, Sports Bus. J. (Oct. 1, 2024), https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2024/10/01/carter-nil-corner (arguing that risk of exploitation amongst student-athletes is due to unregulated NIL agents).  Currently, NIL agents fall into two main categories: (1) certified agents who are licensed to represent athletes in professional sports, and (2) non-certified individuals who solely operate as “NIL agents.”  See id. (explaining that neither group has specialized training on NIL policies).

[36] See id. (asserting that student athletes remain at risk of exploitation without standardized training for NIL agents).  

[37] See How to Protect NCAA Athletes from NIL Risks, LexisNexis (Oct. 31, 2023), https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/professional/b/industry-insights/posts/ncaa-nil-rules-?srsltid=AfmBOorTSrJ0ppmbMGD3XVqH_B4i_Pu0zRjErzur_XCE15JXnSDbTdXV (explaining that university due diligence would help identify potential reputational or legal risks in NIL contracts). 

[38] See id. (stating that NCAA rules continue to give colleges and universities final approval over NIL contracts). 

[39] See id. (emphasizing that reputations of student-athletes and universities could be damaged if students accept money from third party implicated in unethical or illegal activity).

[40] See Ramgopal et al., supra note 1 (emphasizing how newly deregulated marketplace targets low-income players in pursuit of their dreams or financial security for their families).