Judge Criticizes Plaintiffs' Handling of NFL "Sunday Ticket" Class-Action Lawsuit
LOS ANGELES -- U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez voiced his frustrations on Tuesday with the way the plaintiffs' attorneys are handling their side of the class-action lawsuit filed by "Sunday Ticket" subscribers against the NFL. The lawsuit, which encompasses 2.4 million residential subscribers and 48,000 businesses that paid for the package of out-of-market games from the 2011 to 2022 seasons, claims the league violated antitrust laws by selling the package at an inflated price and restricted competition by offering "Sunday Ticket" exclusively through a satellite provider.
Judge's Concerns
Before Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones took the stand for a second day of testimony, Judge Gutierrez expressed that the lawsuit’s premise was straightforward. He mentioned the easy-to-understand frustration of a Seattle Seahawks fan living in Los Angeles who cannot watch their favorite team without purchasing a subscription for all Sunday afternoon out-of-market games.
Despite this clear premise, Gutierrez has repeatedly indicated irritation with the plaintiffs’ side. On Monday, he admonished their attorneys for frequently describing past testimony, which he deemed a waste of time. By Tuesday, his frustrations were evident as he doubted the relevancy of plaintiffs' attorneys citing Jerry Jones' 1995 lawsuit against the NFL. Jones had filed the lawsuit against the NFL to challenge the league's licensing and sponsorship procedures, although both parties eventually settled out of court.
Testimonies from Key Figures
When asked if teams should be able to sell their out-of-market television rights, Jones replied that they should not, arguing that doing so "would undermine the free TV model we have now." Additionally, retired CBS Sports chairman Sean McManus took the stand, reiterating his long-standing opposition to "Sunday Ticket" and the NFL's Red Zone channel, believing that "Sunday Ticket" infringes on the exclusivity CBS holds in local markets. Both CBS and Fox, during negotiations, had requested that "Sunday Ticket" be sold as a premium package.
Pricing and Contracts
During the 1994 through 2022 period, DirecTV set the prices for "Sunday Ticket," not the NFL. The league's television contracts with CBS and Fox included language stipulating that the "resale packages (Sunday Ticket) are to be marketed as premium products for avid league fans that satisfy complementary demand to the offering of in-market games." Additional clauses prohibited selling individual games on a pay-per-view basis.
From 1994 to 2022, the NFL received a rights fee from DirecTV for the package. However, starting last year, Google's YouTube TV acquired "Sunday Ticket" rights for seven seasons. During a deposition, DirecTV marketing official Jamie Dyckes revealed that MLB, the NBA, and the NHL each had a suggested retail price for their out-of-market packages, adding that revenue-sharing agreements existed between the leagues and the carriers as their packages were distributed across multiple platforms.
Potential Financial Implications
Should the NFL be found liable, a jury could award up to $7 billion in damages, a figure that could increase to $21 billion due to the triple damages provision in antitrust cases. Testimony in the case will continue on Thursday, with closing statements scheduled for early next week.
Judge Gutierrez hinted that he might consider invoking a rule that allows the court to find that a jury lacks sufficient evidence to rule for a party in a case. This underscores his evident frustrations and hints at the possibility that the court might rule before the jury has a chance to deliberate.
Quotes and Observations
"I'm struggling with the plaintiffs' case," Gutierrez candidly admitted. Throughout the proceedings, his comments have reflected his mounting frustration, as he remarked, "The way you have tried this case is far from simple." Expressing further exasperation, he noted, "This case has turned into 25 hours of depositions and gobbledygook," adding, "This case has gone in a direction it shouldn't have gone."
As the case progresses, attention remains on the courtroom, with observers keen to see whether the plaintiffs' attorneys can present a compelling argument that aligns with the straightforward premise Judge Gutierrez initially outlined.