The judge presiding over the class-action lawsuit filed by “Sunday Ticket” subscribers against the NFL has expressed dissatisfaction with the jury’s determination of damages. U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez criticized the jury for not following his instructions on how damages should be calculated. This has led to uncertainty regarding the outcome and potential for the ruling to be overturned.
The federal jury awarded a staggering $4.7 billion in damages to residential and commercial subscribers, accusing the NFL of violating antitrust laws in the distribution of out-of-market Sunday afternoon games. However, the calculations made by the jury departed from traditional methods advocated by experts, raising concerns about the validity of their decision.
Rather than relying on established models proposed by experts in the field, the jury arrived at their damages amount using a different approach. By subtracting the average price paid by subscribers from the list price and then multiplying the result by the number of subscribers, they calculated the damages in a manner that has been deemed indefensible by the NFL’s legal counsel.
The significant amount of damages awarded in this case could have far-reaching consequences for the NFL. With the possibility of damages being tripled under federal antitrust laws, the league is potentially facing a massive financial liability. The NFL has indicated its intention to appeal the verdict, a process that could lead to further legal proceedings in higher courts.
In light of the lawsuit’s outcome, there is uncertainty surrounding the future of the “Sunday Ticket” package and how the NFL distributes its Sunday afternoon games. Any changes to the current system may be put on hold until all legal avenues have been exhausted, complicating the league’s media distribution strategy.
The NFL’s legal battle over the “Sunday Ticket” subscription service has raised questions about the fairness and transparency of the judicial process. The unconventional approach taken by the jury in calculating damages, coupled with the potential for appeals and legal challenges, has cast a shadow of doubt over the integrity of the verdict. As the case continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how this high-stakes legal dispute will ultimately be resolved.