awfulannouncing
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday overturned a district judge's decision to vacate a jury verdict that had found the NFL liable for antitrust violations related to how it packaged NFL Sunday Ticket for DirecTV. The case, which has wound through the courts for roughly ten years, centered on allegations that the league forced DirecTV, its Sunday Ticket distributor at the time, to set artificially high prices to shield the Sunday afternoon broadcast packages sold to Fox and CBS.
A jury sided with the plaintiffs, and the NFL faced $4.7 billion in damages, an amount that would have been tripled to more than $14 billion under federal antitrust law. However, the presiding judge threw out the verdict shortly after it was returned, pointing to problems with how the plaintiffs' expert witnesses calculated the damages.
On Friday, a three-judge panel addressed the plaintiffs' appeal, ruling that the jury's finding of antitrust liability would remain intact but that the damages amount would be retried. According to a report by Puck legal expert Eriq Gardner, the panel also issued a memorandum disposition that has gone largely unnoticed: it sent injunction claims back to the district court to determine whether they are still viable now that the NFL's agreement with DirecTV has expired.
The litigation to date covers only the period when the NFL licensed Sunday Ticket to DirecTV. The league's out-of-market package is now carried by YouTube TV, and it operates under essentially the same model that has drawn antitrust scrutiny. Sunday Ticket continues to be priced at a premium to protect the value of CBS and Fox's Sunday afternoon offerings.
Key Analysis
Gardner suggests that returning the injunction claims to the district court creates an opening for those claims to be extended to YouTube TV. He notes a tactical logic in pursuing an injunction now that a liability verdict has been restored. While that finding would not automatically make the YouTube TV arrangement unlawful, it would provide the plaintiffs with a significant foundation. Gardner writes that a credible threat to that relationship would concern the NFL far more than another dispute over how much former DirecTV subscribers are owed.
If the plaintiffs choose that path, a district court could begin examining options that affect the NFL's Sunday Ticket package in its current form, a prospect the league would presumably want to avoid. Gardner suggests that the most sensible resolution to the decade-long case may be a settlement, one the league might wish it had pursued much earlier. Whether the plaintiffs will ultimately seek an injunction remains uncertain. As Gardner points out, this type of litigation is costly and can take years before any investment yields results. Still, if the plaintiffs conclude that increasing pressure on the NFL serves their interests, this tactic is available to them, and it would be the most disruptive to the league's current business operations and how fans access games.
Originally reported by awfulannouncing.