Judicial Frustration Surfaces in NFL 'Sunday Ticket' Class-Action Lawsuit
LOS ANGELES -- A federal judge overseeing the ongoing class-action lawsuit filed by NFL "Sunday Ticket" subscribers expressed notable frustration with the plaintiffs' attorneys on Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez, presiding over the case involving 2.4 million residential subscribers and 48,000 businesses, levied criticism for what he perceived as the plaintiffs' convoluted handling of their side of the case.
Clear Issues Obscured by Legal Strategy
Before Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones resumed his testimony for the second day, Judge Gutierrez underscored the simplicity of the case's premise. He highlighted the understandable discontent of a Seattle Seahawks fan living in Los Angeles who is unable to watch their favorite team without purchasing a subscription for all the out-of-market Sunday afternoon games.
The lawsuit alleges that the NFL violated antitrust laws by selling its package of Sunday games aired on CBS and Fox at inflated prices. Moreover, it argues that the league restricted competition by exclusively offering "Sunday Ticket" through a satellite provider.
The NFL counterargues, asserting its right to sell "Sunday Ticket" under its antitrust exemption for broadcasting. However, the plaintiffs contend that this exemption applies solely to over-the-air broadcasts and not pay television. If the NFL is found liable, a jury could award up to $7 billion in damages—an amount that could triple to $21 billion under antitrust law provisions.
Gavel Strikes on Plaintiffs' Presentation
Tuesday wasn't the first time Judge Gutierrez voiced displeasure with the plaintiffs' approach. On Monday, he admonished their attorneys, criticizing them for repeatedly describing past testimony which he deemed a waste of the court's time.
The judge also expressed skepticism about the plaintiffs' tactic of referencing Jerry Jones' 1994 lawsuit against the NFL, which contested the league's licensing and sponsorship procedures. That case had eventually been settled out of court. When questioned on Tuesday about whether teams should sell their out-of-market television rights, Jones firmly replied that they should not, as it "would undermine the free TV model we have now."
Industry Voices Weigh In
Retired CBS Sports chairman Sean McManus also took the stand, reiterating his opposition to "Sunday Ticket" and the NFL's Red Zone channel. McManus argued that "Sunday Ticket" infringes on CBS's market exclusivity. Notably, both CBS and Fox had requested during negotiations that "Sunday Ticket" be sold as a premium package.
Contrary to what some might believe, it was not the NFL but DirecTV that set the prices during the class-action period. The NFL's television contracts with CBS and Fox included language mandating that "resale packages (Sunday Ticket) are to be marketed as premium products for avid league fans that satisfy complementary demand for in-market games."
This language also barred the sale of individual games on a pay-per-view basis. From 1994 through 2022, the NFL received a rights fee from DirecTV for the package. Starting last year, Google's YouTube TV acquired the "Sunday Ticket" rights for seven seasons.
Comparisons with Other Leagues
Testimony from DirecTV marketing official Jamie Dyckes revealed that MLB, the NBA, and the NHL had suggested retail prices for their out-of-market packages. Dyckes noted that revenue sharing existed between the leagues and the carriers, given that their packages were distributed across multiple platforms.
As the court proceedings continue, Judge Gutierrez warned that he might consider invoking a rule that allows the court to find that a jury lacks sufficient evidence to rule in favor of one party in a case. Testimony is set to continue on Thursday, with closing statements scheduled for early next week.
An Unclear Road Ahead
Judge Gutierrez's candid remark, "I'm struggling with the plaintiffs' case," encapsulates the ongoing tensions in the courtroom. His comments on the plaintiffs' handling, suggesting it has comprised “25 hours of depositions and gobbledygook," indicate a growing impatience with the current state of the case.
As the case progresses, attention will remain fixed on whether the plaintiffs' attorneys can pivot and present a compelling argument that formally aligns with the straightforward premise initially outlined by Judge Gutierrez.