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
면책조항: XM Group 회사는 체결 전용 서비스와 온라인 거래 플랫폼에 대한 접근을 제공하여, 개인이 웹사이트에서 또는 웹사이트를 통해 이용 가능한 콘텐츠를 보거나 사용할 수 있도록 허용합니다. 이에 대해 변경하거나 확장할 의도는 없습니다. 이러한 접근 및 사용에는 다음 사항이 항상 적용됩니다: (i) 이용 약관, (ii) 위험 경고, (iii) 완전 면책조항. 따라서, 이러한 콘텐츠는 일반적인 정보에 불과합니다. 특히, 온라인 거래 플랫폼의 콘텐츠는 금융 시장에서의 거래에 대한 권유나 제안이 아닙니다. 금융 시장에서의 거래는 자본에 상당한 위험을 수반합니다.
온라인 거래 플랫폼에 공개된 모든 자료는 교육/정보 목적으로만 제공되며, 금융, 투자세 또는 거래 조언 및 권고, 거래 가격 기록, 금융 상품 또는 원치 않는 금융 프로모션의 거래 제안 또는 권유를 포함하지 않으며, 포함해서도 안됩니다.
이 웹사이트에 포함된 모든 의견, 뉴스, 리서치, 분석, 가격, 기타 정보 또는 제3자 사이트에 대한 링크와 같이 XM이 준비하는 콘텐츠 뿐만 아니라, 제3자 콘텐츠는 일반 시장 논평으로서 "현재" 기준으로 제공되며, 투자 조언으로 여겨지지 않습니다. 모든 콘텐츠가 투자 리서치로 해석되는 경우, 투자 리서치의 독립성을 촉진하기 위해 고안된 법적 요건에 따라 콘텐츠가 의도되지 않았으며, 준비되지 않았다는 점을 인지하고 동의해야 합니다. 따라서, 관련 법률 및 규정에 따른 마케팅 커뮤니케이션이라고 간주됩니다. 여기에서 접근할 수 있는 앞서 언급한 정보에 대한 비독립 투자 리서치 및 위험 경고 알림을 읽고, 이해하시기 바랍니다.
