The transfer portal and NIL (name, image, and likeness) payments have recently significantly changed the landscape of college sports. The combination of the two has resulted in free agency for student athletes and hotly contested litigation in connection therewith.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association created the transfer portal in 2018. Prior to its creation, student athletes had to obtain permission from their existing schools to transfer to other schools and had to sit out a year from competition upon transferring. The creation of the transfer portal changed those rules, allowing student athletes to transfer at will and play immediately.

The NCAA created its NIL policy in 2021, which permits student athletes to profit from their name, image, and likeness while in college.

When colleges pay their student athletes, they typically have them sign agreements (frequently called “NIL License Agreements”). The NIL License Agreement used by the Big Ten Conference schools, for example, provides that the student athlete grants the school a “license to use the Student-Athlete’s name, nickname, pseudonym, voice, signature, caricature, likeness, image, picture, portrait, quotes, statements, writings, identifiable biographical information, other identifiable features and any other indicia of personal identity.” The agreement further provides that during its term, the “Student-Athlete will not . . . enroll at and/or compete in athletics for another college or university” or “use or authorize the use of the Student-Athlete’s NIL in connection with any college or university other than” his or her existing school. The agreement further provides that during its term, the school “is not obligated to enter the Student-Athlete into the transfer portal” and, “even if the Student-Athlete transfers to another university or college, the Student-Athlete will not use or authorize the use of the Student-Athlete’s NIL in connection with the transferee university or college.”

Reports indicate that over 70% of men’s college basketball players with remaining eligibility entered the transfer portal last year, with some schools paying them as much as $4 million or more per year in NIL money.

But what happens when a student athlete who is a party to a multi-year NIL License Agreement decides to transfer to a different school during the term of the agreement? This scenario has recently played out and resulted in aggravated litigation between the current school and the student athlete, and between the current school and the school to which the student athlete transferred.

In July 2024, quarterback Darian Mensah signed a multi-year NIL License Agreement with Duke University, reportedly worth $4 million per year. The agreement provided that Mensah would not “enroll at or compete in athletics for another collegiate institution” during the term of the agreement, which ends on December 31, 2026. Following the 2025-26 college football season, Mensah announced he would be entering the transfer portal, and it was reported he intended to transfer to the University of Miami. Duke sued Mensah in January 2026, seeking to force him to honor his NIL License Agreement and to prohibit his transfer. On Duke’s motion, the court granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting Mensah from enrolling at or playing for another school through December 31, 2026. Thereafter, Duke and Mensah entered into a confidential settlement agreement pursuant to which, according to reports, Duke permitted Mensah to transfer to Miami, and Mensah paid Duke a significant sum to buy out of his agreement.

In January 2025, the University of Wisconsin sued the University of Miami for allegedly tampering with defensive back Xavier Lucas, who transferred from the University of Wisconsin to the University of Miami a few weeks after signing a multi-year Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Wisconsin. Wisconsin alleged that Miami tortiously interfered with its MOU with Lucas. Discovery is proceeding in the case.

On February 25, 2026, the University of Cincinnati sued its former quarterback, Brendan Sorsby, for breaching his NIL License Agreement with the university by transferring to Texas Tech University during the term of the agreement. Sorsby’s agreement with Cincinnati provided that, if he transferred to another school during its term, he would pay the university liquidated damages of $1 million. As of this writing, Sorsby has not filed a response to the lawsuit; it is due on April 27, 2026.

These cases and others could set a precedent (legal or practical) for future conduct by schools and student athletes. It is unknown whether NIL License Agreements will be governed by antitrust laws, laws relating to restrictive covenants (covenants not to compete), contract principles, or some other legal principle. Depending on what law governs, the results could be very different. For example, if the agreements are governed by laws relating to restrictive covenants, some states prohibit them except in limited circumstances. In contrast, other states consider various factors in determining enforceability, such as whether the agreement is unduly harsh to the restricted party and whether it violates general principles of public policy.

It will be interesting to watch how these cases and others shake out and what impact they have on the NIL environment in college sports. The student athletes may have significant risk either way. If they lose, the courts may prohibit them from transferring and order them to pay damages to their previous school, which could include reimbursement of some or all of the NIL money they received and the school’s attorney fees. If the student athletes win, schools may be more cautious about how much or when they pay the student athletes given that, otherwise, there may be no guarantee that a school will ultimately receive the benefits of the deal.

College sports are rapidly changing, and litigation in this area is expected to increase, at least until the NCAA or the courts better define the rules.

Spring is the season for cleaning and organization—and it can also be a good time for businesses to revisit their document retention policies. For any combination of paper files, emails, and digital records, having a thoughtful business records management strategy can help reduce risk, control storage costs, and ensure compliance with legal requirements.

As you review what to keep, archive, or dispose of, consider the following key issues.

Be Mindful of Litigation Holds

If your business is involved in litigation—or reasonably anticipates litigation—you must preserve documents related to the dispute. This requirement is commonly referred to as a litigation hold.

Implementing a litigation hold often means suspending automatic deletion features on email systems, servers, cloud storage platforms, and backup systems. Courts may impose monetary sanctions or other penalties, including adverse rulings, if a party fails to take reasonable steps to preserve relevant documents or electronic records.

Understand Record Retention Requirements

Many industries are subject to federal and state record retention requirements. Businesses should ensure their document retention policies comply with any applicable laws and regulations.

For example, lenders must retain certain loan documentation, including closing disclosures, for five years under federal lending regulations. If you are unsure which requirements apply to your business, consulting legal counsel can help ensure compliance and reduce regulatory risk.

In addition to specific industry requirements, certain categories of documents must be kept for minimum periods of time by law. Many organizations (including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) have assembled lists of laws with document retention periods.

When more than one minimum retention period could apply to a document, the longer period should be used. For example, payroll records must be kept for three years under Wisconsin law, but the IRS requires records of employment taxes to be kept for four years. A document that qualifies as both should be kept for at least four years.

Balance the Costs and Benefits of Storing Records

A well-designed document retention policy balances the benefits of keeping records with the costs of storing them.

On one hand, maintaining historical records can help resolve disputes, support regulatory compliance, and preserve institutional memory. Quickly locating important documents can save significant time and expense.

On the other hand, document storage—whether physical or electronic—comes with costs. Paper files require office space or off-site storage fees, while digital storage involves its own storage costs and requires secure systems, software, maintenance, and IT support.

Organization Saves Headaches and Preserves Usefulness

Documents are only helpful if they can be located when needed. Just like a storage room full of unlabeled paper files, digital records that are poorly organized, inconsistently named, or difficult to search provide limited value.

Businesses should implement clear file naming conventions, structured folders, and searchable systems to improve records management efficiency.

Labeling physical and electronic folders with information on when the files can be destroyed is also a best practice that can save your future self time and effort.

Consistency Is Key

The most effective approach for a business is to adopt a formal document retention policy and apply it consistently across the organization.

If a dispute arises in the future, demonstrating that documents were destroyed in accordance with a routine and consistently followed policy can help minimize discovery disputes or allegations of improper document destruction.

When in Doubt, Seek Legal Guidance

If you are unsure of the legal implications of keeping or disposing of certain documents, contact an attorney. For more information, contact Christa Wittenberg at 414-276-5000, Christa.Wittenberg@wilaw.com, or any of the attorneys at O’Neil Cannon.

A significant development to Wisconsin’s economic and cultural policy is now underway, as Governor Tony Evers announced on February 17, 2026, the launch of the state’s new film production tax credit program and the establishment of a dedicated state film office. As part of the 2025-27 biennial budget, the state authorized up to $5 million in annual tax credits designed to incentivize film, television, documentary, and related production activity within Wisconsin. The program, administered by Film Wisconsin under the Department of Tourism, marks Wisconsin’s return to offering competitive production incentives after a fifteen-year period in which the state has gone without a comprehensive tax-incentive program for media production, aligning the state more closely with regional peers, such as Illinois and Minnesota, that actively court creative industry investment by offering related tax credits.

Eligible projects must meet defined minimum spending thresholds to qualify for the tax credit—typically $100,000 for productions of 30 minutes or longer and $50,000 for shorter works. Eligible costs for the credit include in-state wages for cast and crew, accommodations and lodging, set construction and operations, rental or purchase of equipment and facilities, location fees, and other production-related goods and services. Credits are capped at $1 million per project annually, and Film Wisconsin will review applications monthly, providing a structured and transparent process for applicants. The credit is retroactive to qualifying expenditures beginning January 1, 2026, meaning that early-year investments may still be eligible for relief.

The film tax credit reflects a targeted economic development approach that leverages tax incentives to stimulate job creation, local hiring, and spending in Wisconsin’s service and supplier ecosystem. By formalizing eligibility criteria, administrative oversight, and annual caps, the program seeks to balance fiscal stewardship with industry competitiveness. For production stakeholders, understanding the compliance requirements is essential for maximizing the benefits of the program. As the initiative unfolds in 2026 and beyond, the film tax credit could become a cornerstone of Wisconsin’s broader strategy to enhance its creative economy and attract an expanded slate of production activity.

The legal implications extend beyond eligibility analysis. Structuring considerations may include entity formation, allocation of credits in pass-through entities, transferability mechanics, and coordination with other state or federal incentives. Additionally, the program may require contractual provisions addressing credit risk allocation, clawback exposure, audit rights, and representations concerning local hiring and spending thresholds, all of which should be evaluated by counsel. As rulemaking and administrative guidance evolve, ongoing monitoring will be essential to ensure the available incentives are maximized while maintaining full statutory and regulatory compliance.

O’Neil Cannon is pleased to announce that Christina Ruud, Cate Heerey, Nancy Wilson, and Max Stephenson were elected as shareholders of the firm.

Each attorney has built a strong practice within their respective areas. Ruud advises clients on commercial real estate transactions and development matters. Heerey counsels businesses and owners on a range of corporate and transactional issues. Wilson focuses on tax and estate planning for individuals, families, and business owners. Stephenson represents clients in family law matters, advising individuals and families on a range of domestic relations issues.

Please join us in congratulating them on this well-deserved achievement.

O’Neil Cannon is pleased to announce that Sabrina Dornan has joined the firm. Dornan focuses her practice on estate planning, trust administration, probate, and business succession matters, assisting individuals and families in developing comprehensive estate plans and guiding clients through probate administration. She is licensed to practice law in Wisconsin and Illinois.

O’Neil Cannon, founded in Milwaukee in 1973, is a full-service law firm focused on meeting the diverse legal needs of businesses and their owners. Our experienced attorneys work with businesses at every stage of the business life cycle, helping them start, grow, and successfully transition. We also represent businesses and individuals in a wide range of other matters, including litigation, tax and estate planning, and family law. For more information about the services we provide, please visit our website.

Grant Killoran was recently elected to serve as the Wisconsin State Delegate to the American Bar Association.

State Delegates are elected by the ABA members in a given state and maintain relationships between state and local bars and the ABA. State Delegates serve as members of the ABA’s Nominating Committee and vote to elect ABA officers and most members of the ABA Board of Governors. Additionally, State Delegates serve as Chair of their state’s Delegation to the ABA House of Delegates, the Association’s governing and policy-making body structured to reflect the legal profession in the United States.

Grant previously served as a member of the ABA Board of Governors from 2021-2024 and as a member of the ABA House of Delegates from 1997-1999, 2003-2009, and 2014-2024.

Grant is a shareholder and past Chair of O’Neil Cannon’s Litigation Practice Group. He has diverse trial experience, focusing on complex business and health care disputes.

O’Neil Cannon is proud to announce that attorneys Doug Dehler, Grant Killoran, Dean Laing, Greg Lyons, Patrick McBride, Joe Newbold, Steve Slawinski, and Christa Wittenberg have been selected as Benchmark Litigation Stars in the 19th edition of Benchmark Litigation.

Based on extensive research and feedback from peers and clients, Benchmark Litigation Stars are recognized as the nation’s most respected and accomplished litigation practitioners. Inclusion as a Benchmark Litigation Star reflects each attorney’s outstanding reputation, deep litigation experience, and consistent success on behalf of clients.

Benchmark Litigation is a leading guide to the world’s foremost litigation firms and lawyers, widely relied upon by in-house counsel and legal professionals nationwide.

We’ve made it to the last week of January and our last employer resolution: reviewing and updating the company’s employee handbook. While this may seem like the simplest resolution, it will actually require careful thought and review. A handbook is more than just a list of “dos and don’ts.” It is an employer’s first line of defense in litigation and an important tool for setting company culture. Employers need to look at both whether their handbooks address their actual policies, practices, and values that are implemented in the workplace and whether their policies are legally compliant. Even if you updated your handbook a year or two ago, the legal landscape has potentially shifted, requiring updates.

When considering handbook updates, pay particular attention to the following areas, some of which may be affected by the NLRB’s 2023 Stericycle decision, which now presumes that rules that could be “reasonably interpreted” to chill an employee’s rights are unlawful. Although Stericycle could be overturned under the current administration, for now, it is good law, and running afoul of it could put employers in the NLRB’s crosshairs.

1. Conduct and Civility: General requirements to “act professionally” or “be positive” are under fire. The NLRB often views broad “anti-disparagement” or “civility” rules as a way to prevent employees from complaining about their supervisors or workplace safety.
2. Confidentiality: While employers have a right to protect trade secrets and confidential information, employers cannot prohibit employees from discussing “terms and conditions of employment,” which include their pay, benefits, and workplace grievances. Employees who have access to trade secrets and confidential information should be required to sign, at a minimum, a separate non-disclosure agreement, as most employee handbooks are structured to not be enforceable contracts.
3. Social Media and Communications: Policies that broadly ban “detrimental” posts about the company often fail the Stericycle test. These rules must be specific and include clear “safe harbor” language.
4. Recording: Blanket bans on taking photos or recordings in the workplace (often intended to protect privacy and confidentiality) can be seen as an attempt to prevent employees from documenting unsafe working conditions or labor violations.
5. Leave Laws: Many state-specific leave laws have been implemented in recent years, and employers with locations in multiple states, or even remote employees working from their homes in different states, should ensue that they are compliant with all applicable laws such as sick time and family leave.
6. Accommodations: While employers hopefully have solid policies and procedures in place for addressing accommodations for disabilities, the need to carefully address religious accommodations is becoming increasingly important. Both of these policies and processes should be addressed clearly in the employee handbook.

Resolution: Dedicate Time to Your Handbook Review

Handbook reviews are not the most exciting project, and in the busy day-to-day, it’s an easy task to push off for months or even years. But an outdated handbook can cause confusion among your employees or even lead to litigation due to inaccurate, inapplicable, or impermissible policies. In 2026, dedicate the required time to reading and reviewing your employee handbooks to make sure that they are up to date and legally compliant.

As always, O’Neil Cannon is here for you. We encourage you to reach out with any labor and employment questions, concerns, or legal issues you may have, including assistance with drafting and reviewing employee handbook.

Another week, another resolution. This time, we’re addressing the AI elephant in the room. While the use cases for AI are myriad, the legal landscape is somewhat unknown and rapidly developing. But, for better or worse, employees are using AI. So, from trade secret risks to proposed legal oversight, employers need to address AI now.

1. Stop Wondering If It’s Happening and Start Managing It

The biggest mistake an employer can make is assuming their workforce isn’t using AI because they haven’t “authorized” it yet. They’re potentially using it to polish emails, summarize complex contracts, and draft performance reviews.

If you don’t have a clear AI use policy, you have an unmanaged risk. Your resolution should be to audit which tools are being used and implement a policy that clearly defines approved and prohibited platforms and approved and prohibited uses.

2. Protect Your Trade Secrets

We often think of trade secret theft as a “bad actor” with a thumb drive, but in 2026, your secrets are more likely to “walk out the door” through a ChatGPT prompt. Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Wisconsin Uniform Trade Secrets Act, it is required that reasonable efforts must be taken to maintain the secrecy of information that is a trade secret. Every time an employee feeds a sensitive proposal or proprietary code into a public AI model to clean it up or summarize it, that data may be used to train the model, arguably making it ascertainable to others and, therefore, not secret.

In addition to implementing a clear policy, employers should consider updating their confidentiality agreements and training staff on the risks (and consequences) associated with inputting confidential and proprietary information into open-source AI platforms.

3. Commit to the Human Oversight

In Wisconsin, the Governor’s Task Force on Workforce and Artificial Intelligence has been tasked with gathering and analyzing information to produce an advisory action plan to identify the current state of generative AI’s impact on Wisconsin’s labor market; develop informed predictions regarding its opportunities and impact for the near term and into the future; identify how these workforce opportunities and impacts may touch Wisconsin’s key industries, occupations, and foundational skillsets; explore initiatives to advance equity and economic opportunity in the face of these changes; and based on these findings, recommend policy directions and investments related to workforce development and educational systems to capitalize on the AI transformation.

Although the Governor’s Task Force on Workforce and Artificial Intelligence may not result in specific legislation, some states, such as California, are implementing laws that prohibit employers from relying exclusively on AI for hiring, firing, or disciplinary actions. Even without an AI-specific law, AI algorithms are susceptible to implicit bias, which employers must avoid to remain in compliance with general employment laws such as Title VII and the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act.

Employers should ensure employment decisions are, at a minimum, reviewed and validated by a human so that an actual person can explain the reasoning behind any AI-assisted outcome.

Ultimately, AI is a tool, not a replacement for sound management or legal compliance. The goal for 2026 isn’t to stop using AI; instead, the goal is to require employees to use it responsibly. By being intentional and proactive this year, employers can enjoy the benefits of AI without accidentally falling victim to its employment law pitfalls.

As always, O’Neil Cannon is here for you. We encourage you to reach out with any labor and employment questions, concerns, or legal issues you may have, including assistance with AI policies.