US Justice Dept backs reviving DirecTV lawsuit over transmission fees
By Mike Scarcella
July 24 (Reuters) -The U.S. Justice Department has asked a federal appeals court to reinstate a lawsuit by satellite television provider DirecTV accusing Nexstar Media and two other television station owners of scheming to drive up retransmission fees for distributing content to viewers.
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed Tuesday with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the DOJ argued that a lower federal judge applied the wrong legal framework in a March order dismissing DirecTV’s lawsuit against Nexstar, Mission Broadcasting and White Knight Broadcasting.
The department said it was not taking sides in the lawsuit and did not offer a view on who should prevail. It argued that the 2nd Circuit should return the case to the trial court to reconsider its decision, mirroring arguments from DirecTV.
DirecTV had no immediate comment, and Nexstar, the country’s largest third-party owner or operator of television stations, did not immediately respond to a request for one. Mission declined to comment and White Knight could not be reached.
DirecTV and other subscription television program providers pay retransmission fees to station owners such as Nexstar in order to distribute their programming.
The lawsuit, filed last year, said the defendants violated antitrust law by depriving DirecTV "of a fair competitive process that has resulted in higher prices being demanded of it and lost profits."
DirecTV said it would not pay inflated prices, and so did not renew some license agreements and lost access to broadcast stations, subscribers and revenue.
In his order dismissing the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan ruled DirecTV could not tie any losses it suffered to the alleged antitrust conspiracy. He said DirecTV had not paid inflated fees because it “made the unilateral decision to abandon” negotiations.
The Justice Department’s brief to the 2nd Circuit said Castel’s order was “unduly narrow” and that the harm of alleged price-fixing schemes could be more than just paying inflated fees. Other harms include diminished quality and output.
The government’s brief said DirecTV’s loss of contract renewals, for instance, could be considered an antitrust injury.
DirecTV is seeking damages for lost revenue and a court order barring the defendants from conspiring on future contract negotiations.
The case is DirecTV LLC v. Nexstar Media Group Inc, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-981.
For DirecTV: Olivier Antoine, Amanda Shafer Berman and Jordan Ludwig of Crowell & Moring
For Nexstar: Lauren Willard Zehmer and David Haller of Covington & Burling
Read more:
US judge dismisses DirecTV lawsuit against Nexstar, other station owners
Reporting by Mike Scarcella
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
