Bank Street Journal
  • Business
  • Politics
  • World
  • Investing
  • Business
  • Politics
  • World
  • Investing
No Result
View All Result
Bank Street Journal
No Result
View All Result
Home Business

Federal judge overturns $4.7 billion jury verdict in ‘Sunday Ticket’ lawsuit, ruling for NFL

August 3, 2024
in Business
Federal judge overturns $4.7 billion jury verdict in ‘Sunday Ticket’ lawsuit, ruling for NFL
0
SHARES
2
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

LOS ANGELES — A federal judge has overturned a jury’s $4.7 billion verdict in the class-action lawsuit filed by “Sunday Ticket” subscribers against the NFL and has granted judgment to the NFL.

U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez ruled Thursday that the testimony of two witnesses for the subscribers had flawed methodologies and should have been excluded.

“Without the testimonies of Dr. [Daniel] Rascher and Dr. [John] Zona, no reasonable jury could have found class-wide injury or damages,” Gutierrez wrote at the end of his 16-page ruling.

The jury on June 27 awarded $4.7 billion in damages to residential and commercial subscribers after it ruled the NFL violated antitrust laws in distributing out-of-market Sunday afternoon games on a premium subscription service.

The lawsuit covered 2.4 million residential subscribers and 48,000 businesses in the United States who paid for the package on DirecTV of out-of-market games from the 2011 through 2022 seasons.

The jury of five men and three women found the NFL liable for $4,610,331,671.74 in damages to the residential class (home subscribers) and $96,928,272.90 in damages to the commercial class (business subscribers).

Since damages can be tripled under federal antitrust laws, the NFL could have been liable for $14,121,779,833.92.

It is not the first time the NFL has won a judgment as matter of law in this case, which has been going on since 2015.

In 2017, U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell dismissed the lawsuit and ruled for the NFL because she said “Sunday Ticket” did not reduce output of NFL games and that even though DirecTV might have charged inflated prices, that did not “on its own, constitute harm to competition” because it had to negotiate with the NFL to carry the package.

Two years later, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case.

It is likely the plaintiffs will again appeal to the 9th Circuit.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Previous Post

UK rocked by far-right riots fueled by online disinformation about Southport stabbings

Next Post

Markets are clamoring for the Fed to start cutting soon: ‘What is it they’re looking for?’

Next Post
Markets are clamoring for the Fed to start cutting soon: ‘What is it they’re looking for?’

Markets are clamoring for the Fed to start cutting soon: ‘What is it they’re looking for?’

    Stay updated with the latest news, exclusive offers, and special promotions. Sign up now and be the first to know! As a member, you'll receive curated content, insider tips, and invitations to exclusive events. Don't miss out on being part of something special.


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent News

    Government shutdown, Epstein files, DC crime: Congress returns to mountain of drama

    Government shutdown, Epstein files, DC crime: Congress returns to mountain of drama

    September 3, 2025
    Trump admin scores legal win in $16B climate fight as federal appeals court lifts block on grant terminations

    Trump admin scores legal win in $16B climate fight as federal appeals court lifts block on grant terminations

    September 3, 2025
    Massie fires back after Johnson calls his Epstein records push ‘meaningless’

    Massie fires back after Johnson calls his Epstein records push ‘meaningless’

    September 3, 2025
    Trump responds to bizarre weekend rumors of his death: ‘I was very active’

    Trump responds to bizarre weekend rumors of his death: ‘I was very active’

    September 3, 2025
    Disclaimer: bankstreetjournal.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Popular

    New Harvard Study Links Lithium Deficiency to Alzheimer’s

    New Harvard Study Links Lithium Deficiency to Alzheimer’s

    August 12, 2025

    Government shutdown, Epstein files, DC crime: Congress returns to mountain of drama

    Government shutdown, Epstein files, DC crime: Congress returns to mountain of drama

    September 3, 2025

    Recent News

    Government shutdown, Epstein files, DC crime: Congress returns to mountain of drama

    Government shutdown, Epstein files, DC crime: Congress returns to mountain of drama

    September 3, 2025
    Trump admin scores legal win in $16B climate fight as federal appeals court lifts block on grant terminations

    Trump admin scores legal win in $16B climate fight as federal appeals court lifts block on grant terminations

    September 3, 2025
    • About us
    • Contact us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Copyright © 2024 BankStreetJournal.com | All Rights Reserved

    No Result
    View All Result
    • Business
    • Politics
    • World
    • Investing

    Copyright © 2024 BankStreetJournal.com | All Rights Reserved