The NFL has about 14.1 billion arguments to defend its defeat in the antitrust case involving the Sunday Ticket. In a recent move, the group made it clear that it is ready to file an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Last Friday, the NFL filed see in the trial judge and Ninth Circuit of its conditional cross-appeal if they encounter any “adverse orders, decisions, decrees, choices, thoughts, notes, conclusions or findings”. Beth A. Wilkinson and another Wilkinson Stekloff and Covington &, Burling lawyers filed the team’s lawsuit. The NFL had previously submitted a notice of a conditional cross-appeal on September 13, but the new filing was deemed necessary because the trial court had decided the NFL’s victory would be the subject of a later ( October ) judgment.
The new processing, NFL lawyers wrote, was made for “protective factors” and to “preserve” the rights of the NFL and its teams in the event the Ninth Circuit reverses U. S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez’s selection in August to give the NFL a view as a matter of rules. After a judge found the NFL to be in violation of antitrust laws because of team pooling their television privileges for out-of-town supporters into one bundle, the Sunday Ticket, Gutierrez issued his decision. The platform costs consumers$ 479 via YouTube TV ($ 199 for college students and other pricing options through assorted discounts/packages, with restaurants and bars paying much more ).
The judge accepted the plaintiffs ‘ argument that NFL team does not bundle all of their games together but should instead engage broadcast-wise, as they do both on and off the field. The jury awarded$ 4.6 billion and$ 97 million to the residential users and commercial establishments, respectively. Competitive laws problems may be trebled, meaning the NFL could have been ordered to pay$ 14.1 billion.
Otherwise, the NFL did give nothing. Gutierrez reasoned that judges were confused by the evidence, including with respect to financial words, and were misled by suppositions. Gutierrez’s decision was gorgeous since judges often grant judgments as a subject legislation following a jury’s verdict. Gutierrez concluded the jury—which heard from 27 testimony and saw 82 admitted expresses during a three-week trial—acted like” no fair judge” may have done in the same position.
The NFL has reason to worry the Ninth Circuit may decide that it was Gutierrez, never the jury, who erred. In 2019, a three-judge Ninth Circuit board reversed a trial court’s termination of an earlier variant of the Sunday Ticket situation.
The NFL’s pool of broadcast appeared to limit viewers ‘ choices, according to Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta. If NFL team did n’t share all their games up, there could be smaller, less expensive items to purchase. Additionally, specific groups may deal with Screen channels and streaming services to transmit games into out-of-town markets. The NFL refutes that line of reasoning as illogical and fanciful, noting that its teams make their games ‘ broadcasts available to their local fans for free (unlike MLB, NBA, and NHL teams ). Meanwhile, Ninth Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith dissented in part. He claimed that the plaintiffs ‘ case is flawed because it accuses NFL teams of being dishonest while simultaneously claiming only DirecTV, the league’s Sunday Ticket partner before YouTube TV, of setting an artificially high price.
Which Ninth Circuit judges will be handling the Sunday Ticket case this time around remain to be seen. A decision is likely many months, if not longer, away. Additionally, it’s possible that the parties will reach an out-of-court settlement in which case the NFL will pay class members in exchange for their dropping their cases.