The NBA has fired yet another volley at a long-standing broadcaster whose imminent marriage from the organization has sparked a significant legal fight.
On Wednesday, the NBA filed a small asking New York Judge Joel M. Cohen to fire Warner Bros. and TBS. Discovery’s breach of contract complaint. The plaintiffs ‘ most recent filing, in which they attempt to persuade Cohen to reject the NBA’s movement to ignore, is addressed in the small.
The petition revolves around a basic question: Did the NBA freely determine that TBS failed to meet Amazon’s present to broadcast sports from 2025-26 through 2035-36?
The NBA and TBS have offered opposing views of lease rules, particularly what qualifies as a “match” and what qualifies as a” counteroffer.”
Through Richard C. Pepperman II and other attorneys from Sullivan &, Cromwell as well as NBA executives Richard W. Buchanan and Daniel J. Spillane, the NBA argues that under the “unambiguous terms” of the NBA/TBS deal signed in 2014, TBS “had not right” to meet Amazon’s offer to deliver games versus streaming.
The group goes on to say that TBS failed to summon a right even if it did.
” Turner revised eight of the Amazon offer’s 27 areas, changed 11 concepts, struck almost 300 thoughts, and added over 270 new terms”, the NBA wrote. ” Defendants ‘ redline was a counteroffer, not a match. That ought to be the case’s conclusion.
The NBA contends that TBS may have matched the phrase” Amazon pledged to encourage NBA newscasts during Thursday Night Football.” TBS could had matched that expression, the NBA claimed, by just negotiating advertising contracts for Thursday Night Football.
In what the NBA describes as TBS ‘ counteroffer ( TBS calls it a match ), TBS inserted a “major sporting league” event, rather than necessarily Thursday Night Football, as an acceptable condition for promoting NBA telecasts. That changes, the NBA maintains, meaningfully changed Amazon’s phrase. ” Thursday Night Football” probably means” Thursday Night Football” more than NASCAR races, regular time MLB and NHL sports, and other possible sporting events that are not, the NBA says,” economically equal” to TNF.
The NBA makes additional defenses, including asserting that TBS is not legally able to distribute NBA games apart from TNT. That is why, the NBA contends, TBS “needed” a” separate Digital Rights Agreement” ( DRA ). The DRA, which contains no matching right, permitted” Bleacher Report to distribute individual TNT telecasts of NBA games via Max, WBD’s SVOD service”. The NBA claims that” the DRA would have been unnecessary” if their agreement with TBS had allowed TBS to distribute games to Max.
The NBA also emphasizes that Amazon’s offer “did not allow for distribution via cable television”. TBS ‘ attempt to match the Amazon offer” changed its terms to permit exactly that”, which the NBA contends “invalidated” TBS ‘ attempted match.
TBS is also accused in the brief of trying to overcomplicate and jumble what the league claims is a relatively simple language. The plaintiff is accused of doing so in order to make the case seem like it needs to be moved past a dismissal in order for further clarification.
For example, the NBA takes issue with TBS “repeatedly” noting its matching rights “extend” to a” subset of TBS ‘ Cable Rights”. The league maintains Amazon’s offer contemplates rights that are not any” subset” of cable rights since, in the context of a streaming service,” they are not cable rights at all”.
Similarly, the NBA stresses that Prime Video “is an Internet streaming service”, whereas” TNT is a cable television network”. And, as the NBA tells it, its agreement with TBS from a decade ago uses the term “distribution” to mean method of transmissions—and not which device a person uses to watch the transmission.
Further, the NBA contends that WBD “is not a proper party” for the litigation. Although WBD has agreed to guarantee TBS ‘ payments, it allegedly “lacks standing to enforce its subsidiary’s contractual rights”.
As detailed in previous stories, TBS and WBD have raised counterarguments. Should Cohen advance the litigation, it is expected to go to trial next April.