The Department of Justice has requested a federal appeals court to revive part of the lawsuit against the NFL regarding the organization of Sunday Ticket, clearly indicating its belief that the out-of-market games package is illegal in its current form. A federal jury awarded consumer and retail plaintiffs $4.7 billion in July 2024 after concluding that the NFL, by pooling the rights of its 32 teams, kept Sunday Ticket prices artificially inflated. However, in an unexpected turn, the federal judge overseeing the case overturned the verdict, asserting that the jury reached illogical conclusions and that witness testimony for the plaintiffs should not have been allowed.
The case is currently on appeal. The DOJ’s amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals states, “The decision below not only tossed out a multi-billion-dollar jury verdict in Plaintiffs’ favor after finding enough evidence to support the jury’s verdict of harm to competition, but it also dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief without any legal analysis to justify doing so.” Although the judge did not permit injunctive relief discussions during the trial, his ruling against it came when he overturned the verdict. The DOJ criticized this decision, emphasizing, “The district court erred by dismissing Plaintiffs’ injunctive claims on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to show actual injury, without ever considering threatened loss.”
While the DOJ has not taken a definitive stance on the appropriateness of overturning the verdict, it has expressed concerns about the district court’s actions. It stated, “The United States takes no position on Plaintiffs’ damages claims, but the district court’s usurpation of the jury, via granting a Daubert motion it already denied post-verdict, is similarly troubling, as is the court’s failure to seriously consider whether the qualitative evidence that established a rule-of-reason violation could have underpinned findings of actual injury and damages.” A Daubert motion is a legal mechanism aimed at excluding expert testimony or scientific evidence from trial.
When addressing the NFL, the DOJ was direct in its accusations of the league’s illegal practices. The DOJ remarked, “The NFL’s illegal practices are continuing. As a result, millions of NFL fans across the nation will continue to face a choice—watch only limited local games or pay ‘premium’ prices for the Sunday Ticket bundle. Given that the challenged conduct has been found to have anticompetitive effects—yet continues unabated—Plaintiffs are entitled to an opportunity to demonstrate that they meet the threatened loss standard for an injunction.” The DOJ also pointed to recent NFL media deals, such as the Christmas Day games with Netflix, arguing that while this deal falls outside the period of the class action, it highlights the need for an injunction to prevent future harm, as it further reduces the number of games available in that week’s Sunday Ticket packages.
The potential impact of the DOJ’s amicus motion remains uncertain, likely modest with the upcoming change in administrations. Trump’s DOJ may adopt a more business-friendly approach, yet the former president is known for criticizing the NFL for political gain. Notably, the Ninth Circuit had previously sent the case back in 2019 after a different judge dismissed it.
