The NFL secured a crucial court victory last August when federal district court judge Philip Gutierrez overturned a $4.7 billion jury award, which could have potentially tripled under antitrust law, in a class-action lawsuit claiming the league’s NFL Sunday Ticket package was anti-competitive.
Gutierrez’s ruling raised concerns about the testimony of the plaintiffs’ economic experts and highlighted issues with the calculation of damages. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs appealed Gutierrez’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit and recently received backing from a Department of Justice amicus brief, which argued for the possibility of injunctive relief that would compel the NFL to revise its approach to selling out-of-market games.
On this note, Puck’s Eriq Gardner reported earlier this week that the plaintiffs have resubmitted their appeal with an alternative damages calculation:
This past week, the class-action lawyers resubmitted their initial appellate brief—still under seal—adding a new formula for calculating damages. A possible outcome of this appeal could be an injunction to prevent Sunday Ticket from using its current provider, YouTube TV, especially given the recent support from Biden’s Justice Department, which argued that the NFL’s illegal actions are ongoing and that the plaintiffs shouldn’t need to quantify their injuries to qualify for injunctive relief.
The damages formula played a pivotal role in last summer’s contentious trial. Following Gutierrez’s verdict, the NFL criticized the plaintiffs’ handling of the case during the trial, particularly regarding economic testimony. The league vehemently opposed these damages in their post-verdict motion for judgment in July, labeling the verdict “nonsensical” and “among the least defensible” in American history. The NFL pointed out that jurors computed an “overcharge” based on a marked price difference for the 12 years covering a $191 gap between the $294 list price of Sunday Ticket Basic for 2018-2019 and the average actual price of $102.74 paid by subscribers, resulting in a massive award of $4.6 billion for residential subscribers and $96.9 million for commercial ones. The NFL contended that this logic was “made up” and “makes no sense.”
While it’s not clear what the new damages calculation entails, its submission during the appeal is significant, especially given the dollar figures and the jurors’ reasoning being central to the NFL’s pushback against the initial verdict. The league is unlikely to accept an alternative number for damages, maintaining that their actions were justifiable. However, presenting an alternative formula could prove crucial in the appeal process or lead to a retrial, potentially addressing a significant aspect of the NFL’s objections.
Gutierrez also raised concerns beyond just the damages calculation, criticizing the plaintiffs’ case management and the angles they attempted to explore. Furthermore, although Gutierrez noted issues with the economic experts presented by the plaintiffs—an essential part of the NFL’s opposition—Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio pointed out that the judge allowed those experts to testify, despite his skepticism.
Ultimately, it’s uncertain whether the introduction of this alternative formula will suffice for a successful appeal. Nevertheless, the fact that plaintiffs have submitted one could prove pivotal, suggesting that the NFL may still face challenges regarding antitrust regulations.
