In a new document of laws, TBS and Warner Bros. Discovery claims that the NBA’s breach of contract complaint stems from the forfeiture of the right to broadcast NBA game.
The 33-page document was filed on Sept. 20 and aims to encourage New York Judge Joel M. Cohen to claim the NBA’s movement to ignore, which Sportico analyzed next month. The case centres on the NBA’s resolve that TBS failed to meet Amazon’s present to broadcast sports from 2025-26 through 2035-36. The plaintiffs insist TBS had the right to match the Amazon offer, TBS matched the offer, and the NBA acted in bad faith to ( allegedly )” circumvent TBS’s matching rights”.
Signed by lawyer David L. Yohai on behalf of himself and other prosecutors from the law companies Weil, Gotshal &, Manges and Hausfeld, the note focuses on why a departure of “multi-billion-dollar problems” is reportedly unnecessary. In other words, the document’s aim is not to win the case, but rather to move the situation past a dismissal order, when the parties did exchange evidence and offer sworn testimony as part of discovery.
Cohen, the plaintiffs anxiety, may refuse the NBA’s movement to ignore if their complaint offers allegations that, if true, state a claim for which the court may offer relief. The letter cites precedence to support the rule that a dismissal of a motion must be denied if the facts “manifest any cause of action criminal at law.” In order to achieve this, the letter claims that none of the matching rights cases cited by the NBA in support of departure were decided on an empirical document rather than at the begging level.
Important details about TBS’s matching rights are divergent, according to WBD and TBS. The NBA contends that TBS’s current agreement, which was signed in 2014, does not permit the distribution of live NBA games on a stand-alone basis via streaming and is instead limited to linear cable TV. From that lens, TBS could n’t credibly match Amazon’s offer. But in their memo, TBS and WBD assert the NBA” conjured up” the term” standalone rights” as part of the litigation and the term “appears nowhere in the]2014] Agreement or in the NBA’s letter rejecting TBS’s match”. Additionally, the plaintiffs assert that TBS is permitted to distribute games over the Internet under the terms of the 2014 agreement.
TBS and WBD further assert that the parties disagree on important details like whether TBS and Amazon offered something in accordance with a matching rights provision. To that end, the plaintiffs assert that Amazon—which the memo underscores “prominently markets” and portrays Prime Video as “television” —and TBS are not so different. TNT and Max, which the plaintiffs claim are capable of being distributed “in the same ways and to the same devices as Prime Video,” were both given permission by TBS to distribute games on both TNT and Max. Transmittal of content via the Internet to televisions, TBS and WBD further charge, “is a form of television distribution” as defined in the matching rights clause.
In addition, TBS and WBD maintain questions about whether the NBA “acted in bad faith to circumvent TBS’s matching rights” warrant a closer look. The plaintiffs contend that TBS knew the NBA had to adhere to certain terms in its agreement with Amazon. For instance, one rule mandates that NBA games be broadcast on a platform that also broadcasts NFL games ( TBS/WBD do not have an NFL contract ). The NBA can undoubtedly argue that a contract that mandates that NBA games be broadcast on a network that has the most watched sports league is just a wise business decision rather than bad faith. However, the plaintiffs would argue that the subject should be examined further and not dismissed.
Cohen will evaluate the competing briefs and make a decision. Should the case be brought in sooner, according to court records, a trial is scheduled for sometime in April 2025. As they litigate against the NBA in court, TBS and WBD ( through TNT ) will broadcast NBA games during the 2024-25 season.