In Re National Football Leagues Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litigation

On June 27, 2024, the Los Angeles jury found the NFL liable for $4,610,331,671.74 in damages to the residential class (home subscribers) and $96,928,272.90 in damages to the commercial class (business subscribers) in the present antitrust lawsuit.

Case Background

The present class action was initiated on December 10, 2015, to fight the antitrust practice and monopoly of the NFL over football telecasts in the United States. Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez presided over this case. [Case number: 2:15ml2668]

Cause

Plaintiffs Ninth Inning Inc. operating as The Mucky Duck, 1465 Third Avenue Restaurant Corp. doing business as Gael Pub, along with Robert Gary Lippincott, Jr., and Jonathan Frantz, through their legal representatives, asserted that the 32 professional football teams of the National Football League (NFL), in collaboration with DirecTV and others, conspired to eliminate competition in the broadcasting and sale of live professional football games, specifically DirecTV’s NFL Sunday Ticket service. Instead of competing in the lucrative football broadcasting market, they allegedly formed an agreement to restrict supply and increase prices. The Plaintiffs initiated this legal action both individually and as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), representing two classes:

1. The “Commercial Class,” comprising all DirecTV commercial subscribers who purchased NFL Sunday Ticket between June 17, 2011, and the present, excluding Defendants and related entities, judicial officers, their families, and jurors.

2. The “Residential Class,” consists of all DirecTV residential subscribers who purchased NFL Sunday Ticket during the same period, excluding similar exclusions as the Commercial Class.

Plaintiffs Mucky Duck and Gael Pub represented the Commercial Class, while Lippincott and Frantz represented the Residential Class. During the relevant period, DirecTV distributed its Sunday Ticket service to members of the Classes nationwide. Defendants set prices for the service above competitive levels.

The lawsuit involved 2.4 million residential subscribers and 48,000 businesses across the United States who subscribed to DirecTV’s out-of-market game package from 2011 to 2022. Allegations included violations of antitrust laws, asserting that the NFL unlawfully monopolized the Sunday games market by selling them at inflated prices and limiting competition to satellite providers.

Injury

Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct had injured Class members by reducing the availability of live video presentations of regular season NFL games, limiting choices among game broadcasts and distributors, and increasing the cost of accessing live NFL game presentations, including raising the price charged by DirecTV for Sunday Ticket.

Their anticompetitive conduct harmed competition and lacked any procompetitive benefits. If any procompetitive benefits had existed, they could have been achieved by less restrictive means.

Damages

Plaintiffs requested the to certify this lawsuit as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of both commercial and residential Classes. They also requested the Court to adjudge that the contract, combination, or conspiracy, and actions by Defendants, as alleged, violated Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act. They prayed for a judgment for Plaintiffs and Class members against Defendants for triple the damages suffered, plus costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26). Plaintiffs also requested pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest legal rate from the date of Complaint service as allowed by law. A prayer to enjoin Defendants from further antitrust violations was also made.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiffs: Ninth Inning Inc. dba The Mucky Duck | 1465 Third Avenue Restaurant Corp. dba Gael Pub | Robert Gary Lippincott, Jr.| Jonathan Frantz
    • Counsel for Plaintiffs: Amanda K Bonn | Amanda K Bonn | Armstead C. Lewis | Christopher L Lebsock | Edward J. Delman | Eliza Rosa Finley | Farhad Mirzadeh | Ian B. Crosby | Ian M. Gore | Kalpana Srinivasan | Kevin P Trainer | Lee Albert | Lionel Zevi Glancy | Samuel Maida | Sathya S Gosselin | Scott Allan Martin | Tyler M Finn | Hollis L Salzman | John D Radice
    • Experts for Plaintiff: Doug Zona | Sarah Butler | Daniel Rascher | Len DeLuca | Einer Elhauge

Claims

The Plaintiffs asserted two main claims in their lawsuit under the Sherman Act. Firstly, they alleged that Defendants engaged in an illegal conspiracy to restrict competition in the market for licensing and distributing live NFL game broadcasts. This conduct aimed to limit consumer choice and inflate prices, violating Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Secondly, the Plaintiffs accused the NFL and its associated teams of monopolizing the market for live NFL game presentations. They claimed that by consolidating licensing rights under a single entity, the Defendants unlawfully restricted competition and exerted undue control over market dynamics. This behavior, according to the lawsuit, exceeded legitimate business activities and constituted an abuse of market dominance, specifically targeting DirecTV’s exclusive rights to out-of-market Sunday afternoon games.

Defense

Defendants countered the Complaint with a series of defenses aimed at undermining the claims brought by Plaintiffs. They argued that claims seeking recovery for indirect injuries should be partially or fully barred, questioning Plaintiffs’ standing and the potential for duplicative recovery of damages. Additionally, Defendants asserted that Plaintiffs failed to mitigate alleged damages and benefited rather than suffered from the conduct in question.

They claimed immunity under various legal doctrines, including statutes of limitations, lack of antitrust injury, and the legality of their business practices under relevant federal laws. Furthermore, Defendants argued against equitable relief, asserting adequate legal remedies existed, and contended that any alleged anticompetitive behavior was essential to maintaining the NFL’s competitive position. They sought to dismiss the claims as speculative.

Expert Testimony

During the trial, both Plaintiffs and Defendants presented expert witnesses to support their respective positions. Plaintiffs disclosed Doug Zona, Sarah Butler, Daniel Rascher, Len DeLuca, and Einer Elhauge as their expert witnesses to provide critical insights and analyses. The Plaintiffs leaned heavily on their main expert witness, economist Daniel Rascher.

On the other hand, Defendants relied on their expert witnesses, including Dr. B. Douglas Bernheim, Dr. Ali Yurukoglu, Dr. Nancy Mathiowetz, Dr. Amanda Lotz, and Neal Pilson. Their testimonies aimed to refute the allegations of monopolistic practices and antitrust violations leveled against the NFL and its associated entities.

Jury Verdict

On June 27, 2024, the Los Angeles jury found the NFL liable in the present antitrust litigation. Accordingly, the jury awarded $4,610,331,671.74 in damages to the residential class (home subscribers). Additionally, $96,928,272.90 in damages was awarded to the commercial class (business subscribers).

The jury, consisting of five men and three women, found that there was a conspiracy that unreasonably restricted trade and aimed at monopoly in the relevant market. Furthermore, it was determined that Defendant DirecTV had knowingly participated in this conspiracy. The jury found that the Residential Class and Commercial Class had suffered injuries due to this conspiracy. Accordingly, it imposed a $4.7 billion penalty on the NFL.

However, on July 4, 2024, the NFL filed an appeal against the verdict calling the amount “nonsensical” and denying that evidence showed subscribers of its “Sunday Ticket” telecasts had been overcharged.

The next hearing is scheduled for July 31, 2024. Once more information is released, this article will be updated.

Court Documents:

Available upon request

Source:

News Article