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
Activos relacionados
Últimas noticias
Descargo de responsabilidades: Cada una de las entidades de XM Group proporciona un servicio de solo ejecución y acceso a nuestra plataforma de trading online, permitiendo a una persona ver o usar el contenido disponible en o a través del sitio web, sin intención de cambiarlo ni ampliarlo. Dicho acceso y uso están sujetos en todo momento a: (i) Términos y Condiciones; (ii) Advertencias de riesgo; y (iii) Descargo completo de responsabilidades. Por lo tanto, dicho contenido se proporciona exclusivamente como información general. En particular, por favor tenga en cuenta que, los contenidos de nuestra plataforma de trading online no son ni solicitud ni una oferta para entrar a realizar transacciones en los mercados financieros. Operar en cualquier mercado financiero implica un nivel de riesgo significativo para su capital.
Todo el material publicado en nuestra plataforma de trading online tiene únicamente fines educativos/informativos y no contiene –y no debe considerarse que contenga– asesoramiento ni recomendaciones financieras, tributarias o de inversión, ni un registro de nuestros precios de trading, ni una oferta ni solicitud de transacción con instrumentos financieros ni promociones financieras no solicitadas.
Cualquier contenido de terceros, así como el contenido preparado por XM, como por ejemplo opiniones, noticias, investigaciones, análisis, precios, otras informaciones o enlaces a sitios de terceros que figuran en este sitio web se proporcionan “tal cual”, como comentarios generales del mercado y no constituyen un asesoramiento en materia de inversión. En la medida en que cualquier contenido se interprete como investigación de inversión, usted debe tener en cuenta y aceptar que dicho contenido no fue concebido ni elaborado de acuerdo con los requisitos legales diseñados para promover la independencia en materia de investigación de inversiones y, por tanto, se considera como una comunicación comercial en virtud de las leyes y regulaciones pertinentes. Por favor, asegúrese de haber leído y comprendido nuestro Aviso sobre investigación de inversión no independiente y advertencia de riesgo en relación con la información anterior, al que se puede acceder aquí.
