US court reinstates 'Sunday Ticket' class action verdict against NFL

WASHINGTON, Oct 30 - A US federal appeals court on Friday reinstated a jury's verdict against the National Football League in an antitrust lawsuit claiming it overcharged subscribers to its Sunday Ticket game telecasts for more than a decade, but said the league can have a new trial on damages.

The ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court judge in California who had thrown out a $4.7 billion verdict against the NFL after the trial in 2024.

The NFL in a statement said it is disappointed by the decision and is weighing its options for further court review of the decision. It defended the televised broadcast strategy as the "most fan-friendly distribution model" in sports and entertainment.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs — residential subscribers and commercial businesses — did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

"Sunday Ticket" is the only broadcast option for NFL fans who want to watch their teams play out-of-market games.

The subscribers alleged "Sunday Ticket" prices were inflated to limit subscriptions and protect fees for distribution rights that broadcast networks paid to air games in local markets.

A Los Angeles federal jury awarded $4.6 billion in damages to residential subscribers and $96.9 million for commercial subscribers like bars and restaurants. But US District Judge Philip Gutierrez overturned the verdict in 2024, throwing out testimony by two key witnesses and finding that evidence did not support the damages.

The NFL had called the damages amount "nonsensical" and argued that the subscribers never proved with reliable evidence that the league’s Sunday Ticket arrangements actually caused them any harm.

In its ruling on Friday, the appeals court concluded the trial judge was wrong to reject the plaintiffs' expert witnesses. A jury verdict "must stand unless it is clearly not supported by the evidence," the appeals court said.

But the panel said the jury's damages award was based "on its improper consideration of the evidence rather than according to the district court’s instructions." REUTERS