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
免責聲明: XM Group提供線上交易平台的登入和執行服務，允許個人查看和/或使用網站所提供的內容，但不進行任何更改或擴展其服務和訪問權限，並受以下條款與條例約束：（i）條款與條例；（ii）風險提示；（iii）完全免責聲明。網站內部所提供的所有資訊，僅限於一般資訊用途。請注意，我們所有的線上交易平台內容並不構成，也不被視為進入金融市場交易的邀約或邀請 。金融市場交易會對您的投資帶來重大風險。
所有缐上交易平台所發佈的資料，僅適用於教育/資訊類用途，不包含也不應被視爲適用於金融、投資稅或交易相關諮詢和建議，或是交易價格紀錄，或是任何金融商品或非應邀途徑的金融相關優惠的交易邀約或邀請。
本網站的所有XM和第三方所提供的内容，包括意見、新聞、研究、分析、價格其他資訊和第三方網站鏈接，皆爲‘按原狀’，並作爲一般市場評論所提供，而非投資建議。請理解和接受，所有被歸類為投資研究範圍的相關内容，並非爲了促進投資研究獨立性，而根據法律要求所編寫，而是被視爲符合營銷傳播相關法律與法規所編寫的内容。請確保您已詳讀並完全理解我們的非獨立投資研究提示和風險提示資訊，相關詳情請點擊 這裡查看。
