Lawyers for the class action plaintiffs suing the NFL for trying to “reverse-engineer” how a Los Angeles judge determined the NFL has pay$ 4.7 billion in damages for competitive violations of the Sunday Ticket on Wednesday urged the presiding judge to not “play Monday night quarterback” and rather reject the team’s activity for a judgment as a matter of law or fresh trial.
The NFL claims that the judge in the national Central District of California court, which included more than 2.4 million private subscribers and more than 48 000 restaurants, bars, and other business establishments, made an “irrational” and “nonsensical” decision to accept responsibility and honor billions of dollars in damages in a course action.

The NFL rejects the case’s underlying theory as technically false and constitutionally false, claiming that more games may be distributed in the same way as college football, with the exception of” through a combination of free TV and standard cable channels with no more registration fee required.” The league contends that jurors reportedly misinterpreted the terms used to distinguish between an overcharge and a discount, including by supposedly misinterpreting the terms monetary and definitional differences. The jury created a flawed approach that neither the plaintiffs ‘ counsel nor economics suggested, as the NFL might perceive it.
In a 36-page small authored by Marc Seltzer and another lawyers, the defendants maintain the judge’s decision should be honored. Emphasizing that no “do-over” is warranted, the small underlines how the jurors heard from 27 testimony over a three-week test that contained 82 admitted displays.
The defendants maintain that while$ 4.7 billion is a large number, it is much less than what the defendants demanded —$ 7 billion. Along those lines, the jury awarding$ 4.6 billion and$ 97 million to the residential subscribers and commercial establishments, respectively, represents 82 % of damages sought for the residential class and just 7 % for the commercial class. Additionally, the combined$ 4.7 billion number is significantly less than” the entire registration profit the NFL received from DirecTV for Sunday Ticket during the course time.” The simple goes so far as to recommend the jury” cautiously discounted” damages.
The small also tries to discredit the NFL’s clarity about the judge’s math analysis.
As the league sees it, jurors subtracted the average actual price ($ 102.74 ) from the list price ($ 294.00 ) to produce$ 191.26, a figure that jurors—the NFL says—multiplied by total numbers of residential subscribers and commercial subscribers. The NFL claims that this tactic is banal because it penalizes the group for fans who pay a discounted price for the Sunday Ticket. Numerous fans benefited from several discounts in exchange for paying the list price.
In their short to presiding Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, the claimants say never so quick. ” There are other possible and lawful reasons”, the small contends, for how the judge landed at$ 4.7 billion.

For instance,” a jury may have preferred a lower damages award to partially credit security defense claims that class members paid in the past were unsure about the real costs they may have paid.”
The plaintiffs also stress the jury did n’t “arrive at a round number like$ 5 billion” but instead offered a specific figure that signals thoughtful deliberation.
The plaintiffs even contend that Gutierrez should use a respectful standard of review when deciding the jury’s verdict. The issue is not whether the prosecutor would have chosen the exact damages number, but rather whether the number is appropriate in light of the testimony and evidence presented to jurors. The plaintiffs added that “reverse-engineering a jury’s damages verdict… is completely impermissible”.
The brief also addresses the NFL’s claim that Gutierrez improperly permitted Juror No. 7, who became the foreperson, onto the jury. This juror paid for a “household member’s Sunday Ticket subscription”, and Gutierrez denied the NFL’s challenge to exclude this juror.
According to the plaintiffs, Gutierrez made the right call regarding Juror No. 7, whose husband only subscribed to the Sunday Ticket for the past year.
” Juror No. 7 and his husband”, the brief contends, “were not class members, did not stand to benefit financially from this case, and would have had no reason to believe otherwise”.
The NFL has raised other objections. The league worries that Gutierrez will triple the damages to$ 14. billion, impose a bond on the NFL to file an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and compel the league to change its broadcasting agreements with partner networks. On July 31st, Gutierrez will hold a hearing to hear the two sides ‘ arguments.