US Federal Judge Overturns $4.7 Billion Ruling Against NFL in 'Sunday Ticket' Case"

In a significant legal victory for the National Football League (NFL), a federal judge in California has overturned a $4.7 billion verdict against the league.

The lawsuit alleged that the NFL overcharged subscribers for its 'Sunday Ticket' game broadcasts for over a decade.

The ruling, issued on Thursday by US District Judge Philip Gutierrez in Los Angeles, followed the NFL's arguments that the verdict was unjustified and the result of a "runaway" jury.

The 'Sunday Ticket' package, offered by DirecTV, is the sole broadcast option for NFL fans who want to watch out-of-market games.

Subscribers accused the NFL of inflating 'Sunday Ticket' prices to limit subscriptions and protect distribution rights. They claimed this practice resulted in exorbitant charges for consumers over the years.

The plaintiffs, comprising individual subscribers and commercial establishments, argued that the exclusive deal between the NFL and DirecTV allowed for the artificial inflation of prices.
In June 2023, a Los Angeles federal jury sided with the plaintiffs, awarding $4.7 billion in damages.

The jury's calculation was based on 24.1 million residential subscriptions over a 12-year class period, amounting to $4.6 billion, and 506,780 commercial subscriptions for bars and restaurants, totalling $96.9 million.

In his 16-page order, Judge Gutierrez vacated the jury's decision, stating that the damages verdict was "clearly not supported by the evidence." He dismissed testimony from two key witnesses for the subscribers, further weakening the plaintiffs' case.

Gutierrez's ruling highlighted several crucial points:

Lack of Supporting Evidence: The judge emphasised that the jury's verdict lacked substantial evidence and did not justify the massive damages awarded.

NFL’s Media Distribution Model: The court acknowledged the NFL's argument that its media distribution model offers fans various options to follow their favourite teams, countering the plaintiffs' claims of restricted availability and inflated prices.

Questionable Jury Reasoning: Gutierrez noted that the NFL had described the damages amount as "nonsensical," arguing that the jury's conclusions were based on a misunderstanding of the evidence presented.

The NFL welcomed the judge's ruling, expressing satisfaction with the decision. In a statement, the league said, "We believe that the NFL’s media distribution model provides our fans with an array of options to follow the game they love."

The plaintiffs' lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. However, the plaintiffs had previously countered that the NFL's arguments were based on "pure conjecture" and lacked evidence that the jury relied on inadmissible information.

The court's ruling grants judgment as a matter of law to the NFL, effectively overturning the $4.7 billion verdict. However, the plaintiffs have the option to appeal the decision to the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Legal experts suggest that this ruling could have far-reaching implications for future antitrust litigation involving major sports leagues and their broadcasting agreements. The case underscores the complexities of antitrust law and the challenges plaintiffs face in proving monopolistic practices in court.

For now, the NFL and DirecTV can continue their business operations without the looming threat of a multi-billion-pound verdict. The outcome of any potential appeals will be closely watched by both legal analysts and sports industry stakeholders.

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels