Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
This consolidated appeal arises from a class-action antitrust lawsuit filed by subscribers of the NFL Sunday Ticket package against the National Football League (NFL) and its 32 member teams. The Subscribers alleged that the NFL’s exclusive licensing agreement with DirecTV for the Sunday Ticket product violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by restraining trade and inflating prices. Following a jury trial, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) in favor of the NFL on all claims, ruling that the Subscribers failed to present sufficient evidence of antitrust injury and actual damages. The district court had previously certified a damages class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and an injunctive class under Rule 23(b)(2). The NFL cross-appealed the class certification orders. In a concurrently filed opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s exclusion of the Subscribers’ expert testimony and the grant of JMOL on damages, ordering a new trial on that issue.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. First, the court reversed the district court’s grant of JMOL on the Subscribers’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under Section 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 26). The court held that the district court erred by conflating the standard for injunctive relief—which requires only a 'threat of injury'—with the standard for actual damages. Because the district court never evaluated the Clayton Act injunctive claims on their own merits, JMOL was improper under Rule 50(a)(1). On remand, the district court must assess whether the injunctive class claims certified under Rule 23(b)(2) are moot given the expiration of the NFL-DirecTV contract and whether a single injunction would provide relief to each class member per Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. Second, the court affirmed the certification of the damages class under Rule 23(b)(3), finding no abuse of discretion. The expert models of Dr. Rascher and Dr. Zona were admissible under Rule 702 and sufficient to establish that antitrust injury and damages are capable of proof through common evidence, satisfying the predominance requirement.
Key Takeaways
- Judgment as a matter of law on Clayton Act injunctive claims was reversed because the district court applied the 'actual injury' standard for damages rather than the 'threat of injury' standard for equitable relief under 15 U.S.C. § 26.
- The district court must determine on remand whether the expiration of the NFL-DirecTV contract renders the Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class claims moot and whether a single injunction can redress the class per Wal-Mart v. Dukes.
- Class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) for damages was affirmed; the plaintiffs' expert testimony (Dr. Rascher and Dr. Zona) was properly admitted under Rule 702 and established predominance of common questions regarding antitrust injury and damages.
- The NFL's cross-appeal challenging class certification under both Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) was rejected in part (affirming 23(b)(3)) and left open in part (remanding 23(b)(2) for mootness analysis).
- Each party bears its own costs on appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the distinct legal standards for antitrust damages versus injunctive relief in the Ninth Circuit, emphasizing that a failure of proof on damages does not automatically warrant judgment against equitable claims under Section 16 of the Clayton Act. The ruling reinforces the viability of class certification in sports broadcasting antitrust litigation where common economic models can demonstrate classwide impact. The remand on mootness and the scope of the Rule 23(b)(2) class highlights the practical challenges of obtaining injunctive relief in long-running litigation where the underlying conduct has ceased. The affirmation of the 23(b)(3) class preserves the path for a new trial on damages, as ordered in the companion opinion.
For practitioners, the order underscores the importance of matching the requested remedy and the governing standard to the case’s exact procedural posture. The result turns on the record described by the court and should not be read beyond the issues actually decided. Counsel should preserve alternative grounds, identify any unresolved questions, and document the facts needed under the applicable burden of proof.