A federal judge has overturned a jury's $4.7 billion verdict in the class-action lawsuit filed by "Sunday Ticket" subscribers against the NFL and has granted judgment to the NFL.
U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez ruled Thursday that the testimony of two witnesses for the subscribers had flawed methodologies and should have been excluded.
"Without the testimonies of Dr. (Daniel) Rascher and Dr. (John) Zona, no reasonable jury could have found class-wide injury or damages," Gutierrez wrote at the end of his 16-page ruling.
The jury on June 27 awarded $4.7 billion in damages to residential and commercial subscribers after it ruled the NFL violated antitrust laws in distributing out-of-market Sunday afternoon games on a premium subscription service.
The lawsuit covered 2.4 million residential subscribers and 48,000 businesses in the United States who paid for the package on DirecTV of out-of-market games from the 2011 through 2022 seasons.
"We are grateful for today's ruling in the Sunday Ticket class action lawsuit," the NFL said in a statement provided to CBS News. "We believe that the NFL's media distribution model provides our fans with an array of options to follow the game they love, including local broadcasts of every single game on free over-the-air television. We thank Judge Gutierrez for his time and attention to this case and look forward to an exciting 2024 NFL season."
The jury of five men and three women found the NFL liable for $4,610,331,671.74 in damages to the residential class, home subscribers, and $96,928,272.90 in damages to the commercial class, business subscribers.
Since damages can be tripled under federal antitrust laws, the NFL could have been liable for $14,121,779,833.92.
It is not the first time the NFL has won a judgment as matter of law in this case, which has been going on since 2015.
In 2017, U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell dismissed the lawsuit and ruled for the NFL because she said "Sunday Ticket" did not reduce output of NFL games and that even though DirecTV might have charged inflated prices, that did not "on its own, constitute harm to competition" because it had to negotiate with the NFL to carry the package.
Two years later, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case.
It is likely the plaintiffs will again appeal to the 9th Circuit.
Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.
