What's next after judge tosses $4.7 bln NFL 'Sunday Ticket' verdict
By Mike Scarcella
Aug 2 (Reuters) -The National Football League scored a huge reprieve on Thursday when a U.S. judge threw out a $4.7 billion jury verdict won by subscribers to the league's "Sunday Ticket" broadcasts who claimed they had been overcharged for years.
Here is a look at how the decision affects "Sunday Ticket" subscribers and the NFL, the reasoning behind the judge's ruling, and what comes next.
WHAT THE DECISION MEANS
After nearly a decade of litigation, a Los Angeles jury in June agreed with the plaintiffs that the NFL conspired with member teams to artificially inflate the price of "Sunday Ticket" for millions of residential and commercial subscribers.
The jury awarded $4.7 billion in class action damages based on 24.1 million residential subscriptions throughout the 12-year class period, and $96.9 million based on about 506,780 commercial subscriptions for bars and restaurants.
U.S. antitrust law allows for damages awards to be tripled, so subscribers potentially could have collected more than $14 billion from the NFL.
Thursday's decision by U.S. District Philip Gutierrez to vacate the verdict wipes away those damages, with no retrial. The judge also ruled that the case could not proceed as a matter of law, granting the NFL a full victory in the lawsuit unless the plaintiffs can persuade a federal appeals court to reinstate it.
WHY THE JUDGE SIDED WITH THE NFL
Gutierrez struck two economic experts who testified in support of the subscribers, finding that they used flawed models to establish whether the NFL's broadcasts allowed for competition. One of the experts drew parallels between the distribution of college football and NFL game telecasts, but the judge ruled there are "significant differences" between the two.
The experts were central to the plaintiffs' case, the judge said, and without them a jury could not have determined that Sunday Ticket subscribers were overcharged.
Gutierrez also called the damages amount “irrational” and said it was based on evidence that the jury was not allowed to consider.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The subscribers can appeal the judge's ruling to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, though they have not yet said if they will.
To revive the case, they would need to persuade the court that Gutierrez made legal errors in excluding the two experts. Gutierrez had earlier allowed those witnesses to be a part of the case, but said their trial testimony revealed new flaws in their methods.
Appeals in the 9th Circuit and other appellate courts often take more than a year to reach a decision. No matter how the court ruled, either side in the case could mount further appeals, potentially all the way to the U.S. Supreme court.
Reporting by Mike Scarcella; Editing by David Bario and Chizu Nomiyama
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.
