Los Angeles — Subscribers who recently won a landmark $4.7 billion judgment against the National Football League fervently defended the jury’s decision in their latest court filings. They argued that the verdict, which stems from allegations of anti-competitive pricing practices associated with the NFL’s Sunday Ticket package, fits squarely within the evidence presented during the trial.
The dispute centers on an antitrust lawsuit claiming the NFL, in collaboration with DirecTV, artificially inflated prices for viewers wishing to watch out-of-market football games. The plaintiffs asserted that the arrangement essentially forced fans to pay elevated prices irrespective of their interest in the games being broadcast.
In a motion filed on Wednesday, the plaintiffs’ attorneys argued their case for why the District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez should uphold the substantial financial award. They noted that, although the $4.7 billion awarded was less than the $7 billion sought, such high-stakes figures are not unusual in modern antitrust litigation given the significant economic implications involved.
Contrary to the plaintiffs’ position, the NFL contended in a July 5 filing that the jurors employed a flawed method to calculate the damages, arguing further that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their case since the jurors had rejected specific damages figures suggested by witness testimony.
However, the subscribers responded by emphasizing that juries are permitted to form their own assessments of damages based on the broad spectrum of evidence presented. They criticized the NFL’s notion that a jury’s internal deliberations could be openly speculated and challenged, citing long-standing precedents under the Sherman Act and pertinent Ninth Circuit rulings.
Legal precedents cited by the plaintiffs support the notion that unless a jury’s award deviates drastically from the plausible range suggested by the evidence, it should not be disturbed by the courts. This principal underscores the deference traditionally given to juries in quantifying damages based on their interpretation of the facts of the case.
In their historic June finding, the jurors concluded that the NFL and DirecTV had conspired to fix the pricing of the Sunday Ticket service. This service, which is the only way fans can watch NFL games not broadcast locally, was said to be unfairly priced, compelling consumers to pay a premium to follow their favorite teams.
Importantly, the awarded damages of $4.7 billion have the potential to triple to nearly $14 billion under federal antitrust laws, emphasizing the significant financial risks for businesses found guilty of violating antitrust regulations.
The dispute, officially listed as In re National Football Leagues Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litigation, represents a pivotal legal battle with far-reaching implications for sports broadcasting and pricing practices thereof. As the proceedings continue, other subscription-based services and sporting leagues will be watching closely, likely anxious about the precedent this case could set for future antitrust litigations.