Reported / Citable
Background
Residential and commercial DirecTV subscribers alleged that agreements among the NFL, its teams, broadcast networks, and DirecTV reduced competition for out-of-market game telecasts and inflated Sunday Ticket prices. Economic experts modeled a competitive “but-for world” and estimated overcharges. A jury found Sherman Act liability and awarded about $4.6 billion to residential subscribers and $96 million to commercial subscribers before trebling.
After trial, the district court excluded the subscribers’ experts as unreliable, entered judgment as a matter of law for the NFL because injury and damages then lacked proof, and conditionally ordered a new damages trial. The subscribers appealed. The published Ninth Circuit opinion addresses the boundary between a judge’s gatekeeping role under Evidence Rule 702 and the jury’s responsibility to weigh admissible expert work.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit reversed judgment for the NFL. The experts used recognized economic methods and sufficient data to model competition and overcharge. The NFL identified assumptions, comparisons, and implementation choices it considered weak, but those points made the opinions impeachable rather than inadmissible. By weighing conclusions and factual persuasiveness instead of screening methodology and foundation, the district court took over the jury’s role. With the expert testimony restored, the liability verdict had evidentiary support.
The panel nevertheless affirmed a new trial on damages. The district court reasonably inferred that the jury departed from both experts’ models and created its own unsupported calculation, including use of list-price figures in a manner inconsistent with the evidence. A trial judge may evaluate whether a verdict is against the clear weight of evidence when deciding a new-trial motion. The case returns with the liability verdict reinstated and damages to be tried again; related class-certification and injunctive issues were addressed separately.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 702 screens for reliable methods, sufficient data, and reliable application; it does not authorize judges to exclude an opinion merely because cross-examination exposes debatable assumptions.
- Antitrust experts may model a counterfactual market to prove injury and overcharge when their methods are grounded in the discipline and record.
- Admitting expert evidence does not insulate the ultimate award. A jury’s calculation still must be traceable to evidence and permissible reasoning.
- The different standards for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial can produce a reinstated liability verdict alongside a retrial limited to damages.
Why It Matters
This published decision matters well beyond sports broadcasting. California antitrust, class-action, and complex-litigation lawyers can use its explanation of Rule 702 when an opponent attacks assumptions that are testable through cross-examination. The focus should stay on methodological reliability, not whether the judge finds one side’s economic story more convincing.
Trial teams must also give jurors a defensible path from admitted models to the verdict form. Demonstratives, closing argument, and proposed instructions should connect each damages input to record evidence and warn against improvising a hybrid calculation. Winning admissibility and liability will not preserve an award that cannot be reconciled with the proof.
The procedural posture is especially instructive. The district judge had admitted the experts before and during trial, then excluded them after seeing the completed record. Post-trial review remained available, but the Ninth Circuit held that the judge used reliability doctrine to resolve disputes the adversary process had already placed before the jury. At the same time, the judge permissibly scrutinized the amount actually returned. Parties should therefore separate three questions in post-trial briefing: admissibility of the proof, legal sufficiency of liability, and evidentiary support for the numerical award.