The UFC’s legal troubles in its ongoing antitrust litigation deepened significantly following a hearing last week that revealed new details about missing evidence and an undisclosed phone number tied to UFC President Dana White.
According to sources, The developments stem from Johnson v. Zuffa, one of two active antitrust cases brought by athletes against the promotion, now operating under parent company TKO Group Holdings. A September 1, 2026 filing from the plaintiffs accused the UFC of failing to properly propose a workable plan for forensic experts to examine executive phone data that should have been preserved during the litigation.
According to the athlete’ attorneys, the UFC’s counterproposal offered data in a format incompatible with the file types in question, along with disconnected fragments rather than complete phone extractions.
The filing also raised questions about the UFC’s own expert witness, pointing to alleged errors in his report that all happened to favor the promotion’s defense. Most notably, the expert claimed executive Tracy Long’s phone was set to retain text messages permanently, contradicting findings from two independent vendors and the court’s previously appointed expert, all of whom found the phone set to delete messages after 30 days.
The most consequential revelation, however, involved a previously undisclosed phone number linked to Dana White. Plaintiffs’ attorneys say they discovered the number through documents from a third-party athlete management agency, showing it was used for UFC business communications with executive Hunter Campbell between 2018 and 2022, a period overlapping with other White devices that have since been wiped.
Judge Richard Boulware appeared troubled by the finding, pressing defense counsel on whether the device had ever been examined, whether it remains in use, and why it was never included on required disclosure lists. The court ordered the defense to investigate and report back within a week, including confirmation of carrier records from AT&T.
The judge was equally direct in criticizing the UFC’s handling of evidence preservation more broadly, noting that phones were left in drawers rather than properly secured, and that a court-appointed expert was unable to access at least one device.
The stakes tied to these findings are considerable. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, courts can impose a range of sanctions for evidence destruction, up to and including default judgment, which would effectively end the case in the athletes’ favor without a trial, leaving only damages to be determined.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys have indicated they intend to file a formal spoliation sanctions motion following the close of document production, with an evidentiary hearing on the matter expected in late November or early December.
