Companies tied to SoFi Stadium owner Stan Kroenke are locked in a pair of high-stakes lawsuits against the City of Inglewood over billboard development near SoFi Stadium and the validity of a sweeping development agreement governing the Hollywood Park complex.
Kroenke is also part of a lawsuit involving City officials and the Rose Bowl Operating who are suing UCLA to prevent the university’s football team from leaving the Rose Bowl for SoFi Stadium over premium seating money.
UCLA’s lease with the Rose Bowl is set to expire in 2044. There is no exit clause in the lease.
Last week, a judge ruled against Kroenke and UCLA, denying arbitration meaning the case will be decided in open court.
The litigation unfolds as SoFi Stadium prepares to host matches during the 2026 FIFA World Cup, as well as the 2027 Super Bowl and events tied to the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.
One lawsuit, filed last July, seeks to block the City’s agreement with WOW Media to install digital billboards, kiosks and other signage on public property bordering Hollywood Park — the 300-acre mixed-use development that includes SoFi Stadium, YouTube Theater, retail, offices and housing.
Inglewood officials say the signage network will deliver traffic and public-safety information, including updates tied to major sporting events.
Plaintiffs — a group of Kroenke-connected entities — argue the City lacked legal authority to enter the deal and contend the signage threatens sponsorship revenue tied to the privately financed stadium.
Court filings claim the displays could interfere with agreements involving the NFL, FIFA and LA28 organizers by allowing advertising near venues that competes with official event sponsors.
The lawsuit also raises concerns about “ambush marketing,” asserting the advertising company could sell space to brands that rival event partners.
Inglewood counters that the plaintiffs are attempting to control advertising on public land for private gain.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maurice A. Leiter denied a preliminary injunction last August that would have halted the billboard project.
He found the alleged harms were financial rather than irreparable — a key legal threshold for emergency court intervention — and noted plaintiffs failed to identify specific sponsorship deals at risk.
Leiter also cautioned against stopping construction while the case proceeds toward trial, which is scheduled for March 13.
A second lawsuit, filed last month, centers on Hollywood Park’s broader development agreement with the City.
Kroenke-linked companies argue Inglewood is unlawfully backing away from contractual obligations tied to the project, which they say helped revive the City’s economy when the deal was forged more than a decade ago.
The complaint alleges the developers invested billions of dollars in infrastructure and public improvements — including streetlights, fire hydrants, traffic systems and public safety services — with the understanding those costs would be reimbursed over time.
It also cites investments such as water-rights transfers and traffic-signal upgrades that plaintiffs say helped position the stadium district to host major events, including the Super Bowl and College Football Playoff championship.
The companies further claim Inglewood previously issued a $20 million partial reimbursement payment before later asserting the development agreement was invalid.
City officials dispute that characterization and argue the agreement is legally void because it was approved through a voter initiative rather than negotiated as a contract — a distinction they say runs afoul of California law.
In court filings, the City cites a 2018 appellate ruling holding that development agreements cannot be enacted via ballot initiative but must be executed directly between municipalities and private parties.
Without a valid agreement, Inglewood argues it cannot legally reimburse developers with public funds and could expose officials to liability for unlawful disbursement.
The City also rejected claims that the deal primarily benefited the public, saying the developers built a privately profitable entertainment district under favorable regulatory and environmental terms.
Inglewood characterized the litigation as an effort to secure what it called a “billionaire’s exception to California law,” adding in court papers that “billionaires are not above the law.”
A spokesperson for Hollywood Park, in a statement, said the City’s attempt to invalidate the agreement after more than a decade is “unjust and unlawful” and that the companies were forced to sue to protect ongoing development and the site’s ability to host global events.
Both cases are moving forward as Inglewood and Kroenke’s companies prepare for a string of international sporting events that will place the stadium complex on the world stage.
Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.
Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m.
