Welcome back to Court Vision.

This issue has a theme: finding out later is the most expensive way to find out.

Athletes are finding out their NIL deals don't comply after they sign them. Sweepstakes casinos are finding out their business model is illegal after they scale it. And somewhere right now, a startup is finding out it doesn't own the thing its contractor built.

Let's get into it.

A key upcoming hearing will shape how NIL deals get evaluated. The question: are third parties like multimedia rights companies and independent sponsors (apparel brands, financial institutions, local businesses) "associated entities" of a school?

Why you care: compensation from "associated entities" can face stricter limits and oversight under the settlement framework. So whoever lands inside that definition plays by the tight rules.

It's already messy in real time. The College Sports Commission (the new NIL enforcement body) has reportedly rejected millions of dollars in deals involving Nebraska football players, and those disputes are headed to arbitration.

My take: the problem isn't the rules. It's the sequencing. Deals get signed, money gets promised, and THEN the regulator decides whether it complies. Until the definitions settle, every NIL agreement should be built to survive review: document how you arrived at the compensation number, and spell out what happens to the money if the deal gets rejected. If your NIL contract doesn't have an answer for "what if the Commission says no," it isn't finished.

Quick explainer if you've never touched one: a dual-currency sweepstakes platform offers casino-style games using two virtual currencies. You buy one for "entertainment" (no cash value) and receive a second promotional currency free, which you can play with and redeem for cash or prizes.

The entire structure exists to separate payment from the ability to win, so it doesn't legally count as gambling.

States are no longer amused. California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Montana have enacted laws targeting these platforms, and more are lining up.

My take: when your business model depends on a technicality, your biggest competitor is a legislature. The first few states are the hard part. After that it's dominoes, and California and New York are already on the list. If you operate in this space, build for it, or invest in it, the time to model the "what happens if this becomes illegal where my users live" scenario was last year. The second-best time is this week.

The most expensive mistake I see from early-stage founders, athletes, and creators: treating legal as a "later" problem. Collaborator contracts, IP assignments, revenue splits. It all stays loose until money shows up. Then it gets expensive.

Here's the thing about a funding round, an acquisition conversation, or a big brand deal: it's just someone else reading your paperwork with money on the line. Every gap you didn't fix becomes leverage you don't have.

A few hours with an attorney now costs less than untangling ambiguity later. Every time. If you don't have someone in your corner yet, that's exactly what fractional counsel is built for.

Pops lets anyone create, remix, and share AI-generated games in seconds, no coding required. Every play automatically becomes a shareable video clip, so the social layer is built into the game itself.

It's early-stage, and it's four legal frontiers in a trench coat: AI-generated content ownership, user-generated content liability, platform moderation, and creator monetization rights. One product, all of them at once.

Why I'm watching: who owns a game that an AI generated, a user remixed, and the platform clipped into a video? Nobody fully knows yet. Companies like Pops are forcing the question, and the answers will define the next decade of gaming law.

When a contract says creative work is "work for hire," the company (not the creator) owns the copyright from day one.

Sounds simple. It isn't. Work for hire applies automatically only in specific situations, like a full-time employee doing their job. For contractors, it must be explicitly stated in writing AND the work has to fall into certain legal categories.

A lot of startups and gaming studios assume they own everything their contractors build. They often don't.

The fix: don't rely on the magic words alone. Pair the work-for-hire language with a backup assignment clause that transfers ownership even if the work-for-hire label fails. Two sentences now, or a very awkward diligence call later.

🕑 WORTH YOUR TIME

If anything in here sounded like your situation, the cheap time to deal with it is now. Forward this to a founder who thinks legal can wait. Their future investors will thank you.

👋 I'm Drew Jacobs, founder and managing attorney at Jacobs Counsel. We're the firm for founders, athletes, creators, gaming companies, and hospitality groups building in the AI age. Full business, brand, and wealth protection. Senior judgment on every matter, AI-augmented workflows, fixed fees whenever the work allows. Built different. Billed different.

LinkedIn | Free resources

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

P.S. If your contractor agreement lives in a DM thread, you don't have a contractor agreement. You have a future dispute.