Welcome back to Court Vision.

A congressman wants to tell gamers they own what they bought. The NIL watchdog is asking whether a "third-party deal" is really a payroll workaround. A creator brand is learning that a platform's disclosure button doesn't count as a disclosure.

.

Let's get into it.

Rep. Ritchie Torres announced the Power to the Players Act on October 15. It would direct the FTC to write rules so digital game purchases are more than a license that can be revoked at any time. Online games would also need an offline mode that works after the servers shut down.

.

The timing is not subtle. Reportedly, 2K delisted NBA 2K25 on October 30, with its servers set to shut down at year's end. Separately, a California class action over PlayStation Store disclosures was filed in June, and Sony has asked for arbitration.

.

Reality check: as of October 18 the bill reportedly had no bill number, no published text, and no co-sponsors. It's an announcement, not a law.

.

My take: the bill probably goes nowhere fast. The question it asks does not. If your game, app, or digital product is sold as a "purchase," read your own terms and ask what happens to the customer on the day you turn off the servers. If the honest answer is "they lose everything," your checkout language and your terms of service are already telling two different stories. Fix that before a plaintiff's lawyer reads both side by side.

.

[Free resource: Check out our free gaming compliance guide here.]

.

The College Sports Commission (CSC), the organization responsible for overseeing new college sports compensation rules, is reportedly investigating between five and ten major college athletic programs, including potential College Football Playoff contenders, for possible violations involving athlete payments and NIL deals.

.

Here's the issue: Under the House settlement, schools can directly pay athletes up to approximately $21.5 million for the 2026–27 academic year. But some college football rosters are reportedly valued at $40 million to $50 million when NIL deals and other compensation are included.

.

That doesn't automatically mean schools are breaking the rules. Athletes can still earn money through legitimate third-party NIL agreements. However, those deals cannot simply be used to disguise additional payments from schools or their supporters to get around the compensation cap. That's what investigators are reportedly examining.

.

My take: a deal doesn't become compliant because someone outside the school signed it. If you're an athlete or an NIL company, "the money came from a third party" is not a defense, it's the exact fact pattern under review. Before you sign, ask what the deliverable is, who set the price, and whether you'd still get this deal if you didn't play for this school. If you can't answer all three out loud, the deal isn't finished.

.

Instagram, TikTok, and other social platforms make it easy for influencers to label sponsored content using built-in tools like the “Paid Partnership” tag. But using that tag alone may not be enough to comply with advertising disclosure requirements.

.

The FTC requires influencers to clearly disclose material relationships with brands, including when they're paid or receive free products. And the National Advertising Division (NAD), an advertising industry watchdog, has found that a platform's built-in commission disclosure was insufficient in at least one case.

.

The takeaway for brands and influencers? Don't rely solely on the platform's disclosure tools. Include a clear, easy-to-spot disclosure such as “Ad” or “Sponsored” in the content itself.
.

.
A disclosure mistake can create legal exposure for both the influencer and the brand. Getting these details right before a campaign launches is much easier than fixing problems afterward.

.

.

Agentiq lets fans buy units tied to a share of an athlete's future on-field "Brand Income." It just announced a $4 million round led by defy.vc. Each athlete deal runs through its own Delaware Series LLC, sold through Regulation A, Tier 2 offerings that the company says the SEC has qualified.

.
The structure is the story. Fans get units, not tickets, not bets, and the athlete gets non-debt capital. That puts securities law, NIL rules, and league and school restrictions in the same contract. Past athlete income-share models have had mixed results, including lawsuits involving Big League Advantage.

.

Why I'm watching: the moment a fan can own a piece of an athlete's income, every word in the definition of that income becomes a million-dollar question.

.

.

It lets one side end the deal early, without cause, usually with some notice. Sounds neutral. It almost never is, because it's usually written for whoever drafted it.

.

Three questions before you sign:

.

- Who gets the right to walk away, just the other side or both?

- How much notice, and what do you get paid for work already done?

- What happens to the rights, content, or data when the deal ends?

.

Push for mutual termination rights, a real notice period (30 to 90 days is common), and a clean wind-down: payment for work completed, rights reverting to you, and a defined date by which your material comes down. A deal that one side can end tomorrow isn't a partnership. It's a trial period with better branding.

.

🕑 WORTH YOUR TIME

Forward this to the founder who describes their product as something customers "buy" while the terms say they "license" it. Both can't be the headline.

.

👋 I'm Drew Jacobs, founder and managing attorney at Jacobs Counsel. 

We’re a boutique law firm for ambitious businesses and the people behind them. We help founders, businesses, athletes, and creators handle contracts, transactions, and brand protection. 

.

Focused experience in gaming, sports, and entertainment.

.

LinkedIn | Free resources

.

Licensed in New York, New Jersey, and Ohio. This newsletter is general information, not legal advice.