The NFL pulled off a major victory in the legal arena thanks to a ruling by U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez that overturned a staggering $4.7 billion verdict against the league which had been issued earlier in June. The court session in Los Angeles saw the league requesting the verdict to be thrown out, eventually leading to Gutierrez granting their wish after taking a day to deliberate.
In his judgement released on Thursday, Gutierrez highlighted the flawed methodologies used by two expert witnesses discussing the financial implications of ‘Sunday Ticket’. “The court agrees that Dr. Rascher’s and Dr. Zona’s testimonies based on their flawed methodologies should be excluded,” noted Gutierrez. This ultimately led to the judgement in favor of the defendants due to lack of substantial support for the plaintiffs’ claims regarding class-wide injury and damages.
Moreover, Gutierrez expressed doubts about the jury’s handling of instructions when calculating damages in the case during a separate hearing the day before. As the trial unfolded over three weeks, the jury was presented with three different financial models for assistance in determining potential damages. Gutierrez stressed on the importance of not resorting to speculative or conjectural calculations when deciding upon a monetary value for the verdict.
The NFL argued during the hearing that the jury had not adhered to the court’s instructions, a sentiment that was echoed by Gutierrez. “There’s no doubt about what they did,” observed Gutierrez, indicating a departure from the prescribed guidelines by the jury. The jury’s independent formulation for awarding damages, which amounted to the hefty $4.7 billion figure, did not sit well with Gutierrez, especially considering that damages could potentially reach up to $14.1 billion in federal antitrust cases.
The jury’s belief that the NFL colluded with its network partners to artificially inflate the price of “Sunday Ticket” led to the unfavorable ruling against the league. While the judge refrained from directly disputing the presence of an anti-trust violation as claimed by the jury, he did express reservations about certain aspects of the trial process.