LOS ANGELES — In a high-stakes legal battle, the National Football MIDFLeague is contesting a sizeable $4.7 billion judgment awarded to disgruntled subscribers who claimed the league schemed with DirecTV to jack up prices for viewing out-of-market game broadcasts. The NFL has requested either a reversal of the verdict or a new trial, claiming the jury relied on an improvised method to determine damages.
Subscribers have held firm, supporting the decision brought by the federal jury and arguing in court filings that the heavy compensation is thoroughly backed by the trial’s evidence. Their counsel pointed out that even though awarded damages stood at $4.7 billion — below the $7 billion they sought — such figures are not uncommon given the substantial economic stakes in antitrust litigations.
Recently, plaintiffs urged Judge Philip S. Gutierrez of the U.S. District Court for the Central –District of California to sustain the jury’s decision. They argued the sums awarded fall well within reasonable bounds, referencing legal precedents from the Ninth Circuit which caution against judicial interference when a jury’s verdict is grounded in sound evidence.
The case arises from a June verdict where the NFL was found to have conspired to inflate subscription prices, compelling fans to overpay to watch their favored teams or other out-of-market games. This arrangement, according to those suing, unfairly forced viewers to spend more despite their specific viewing preferences.
The NFL fired back, asserting on July 5 that jurors ignored expert testimony on damages, instead following an erroneous and speculative approach of their own. The league’s insistence upon uncertainty in jurors’ thought processes was met with vigorous opposition from the plaintiffs, who contended that the jurors were well within their rights to arrive at their own damage calculations.
“The defendants reverse nearly a century of Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding the Sherman Act and numerous rulings from the Ninth Circuit concerning damages,” was a notable assertion in the plaintiff’s recent court filings, emphasizing the jury’s adherence to traditional legal norms.
If upheld, under the federal antitrust law, the $4.7 billion in damages may triple, soaring up to $14 billion and marking one of the monumental antitrust penalties in modern history.
The ongoing legal saga, formally known as In re National Football League Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litigation, continues to draw attention as further decisions from Judge Gutierrez are awaited.
Observers note this case marks a significant moment in antitrust law, potentially setting far-reaching precedents for how subscription services and media rights are negotiated and sold in sports and beyond. With the legal arguments submitted, stakeholders from a spectrum of industries are watching closely, knowing the implications could extend far beyond the gridiron.