United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019-08-13
15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; Sunday Ticket subscribers sued the NFL, its teams and DirecTV under §§ 1 and 2, challenging the pooling of telecast rights and the exclusive satellite distribution agreement; district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6); CA9 reversed; result: remanded; claim:
Uncertainty
opinion: the IR text is capped at 59999 chars; the majority is complete, the partial dissent (Part III(C) only: Illinois Brick bars the challenge to the Teams-NFL Agreement) is cut off near its end. No majority footnotes appear in the text.
Element agreement: basis: [conceded] at the pleading stage: what is undisputed is that the complaint adequately alleges the contracts; [pleaded] is the alternative.
Element agreement: guard: G3-cited-case the sentence describes this case's Teams-NFL Agreement; American Needle is cited only for the quoted description of the teams as independently owned businesses
Element injury: route: the court treats "antitrust standing or antitrust injury" as one element and its analysis is the Illinois Brick question recorded in the `standing` block; antitrust injury gets no separate discussion (`_derivative` is the alternative).
Misfit
The court assumes without deciding that the Sports Broadcasting Act exemption (15 U.S.C. § 1291) does not cover satellite distribution, because defendants did not invoke it; the law file has no element for that statutory exemption.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 11
Elements 7–11 of 11
| Case | Statute of limitations (4-year civil under 15 U.S.C. § 15b; 5-year criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 3282) | Law-of-the-case doctrine in consolidated/MDL antitrust proceedings | Criminal mens rea: knowing participation in the conspiracy or intent to restrain trade | Ancillary restraints doctrine (restraint subordinate and collateral to a legitimate productive integration) | Horizontal cartel / hub-and-spoke conspiracy operating through vertical or dual-distribution arrangements |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mucky Duck v. Directv, LLC (In re Nat'l Football League's Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig.) — 933 F.3d 1136 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mucky Duck v. Directv, LLC (In re Nat'l Football League's Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig.) — 933 F.3d 1136 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; party: putative class of residential and commercial Sunday Ticket subscribers (plaintiffs) v. the NFL, its 32 teams and DirecTV; theory: interlocking agreements: the Teams-NFL Agreement pooling the teams' telecast rights and the NFL-DirecTV Agreement giving DirecTV exclusive distribution of out-of-market games; subject: party=putative class of residential and commercial Sunday Ticket subscribers (plaintiffs) v. the NFL, its 32 teams and DirecTV; theory=interlocking agreements: the Teams-NFL Agreement pooling the teams' telecast rights and the NFL-DirecTV Agreement giving DirecTV exclusive distribution of out-of-market games | sports league: written agreement among separately owned teams to pool telecast rights in the league, plus the league's exclusive distribution contract | The Supreme Court has held that a horizontal agreement among competitors to pool separate property rights and enter into an agreement to license their rights vertically can constitute a Section 1 violation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [31002:31208] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.The 32 individual NFL teams, each of which is a separate "independently owned, and independently managed business," Am. Needle , 560 U.S. at 196, 130 S.Ct. 2201, entered into an agreement with the NFL ("Teams-NFL Agreement") to pool their telecasting rights and give the NFL the authority to exercise those rights, rather than exercising those rights individually.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [13920:14284] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.According to the complaint, the NFL members vote to approve the contract between DirecTV and the NFL.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [26975:27076] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.The defendants do not dispute that the complaint adequately alleges that defendants have contracts for the purpose of restraining trade, the first and second elements.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [21862:22029] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9. |
| Mucky Duck v. Directv, LLC (In re Nat'l Football League's Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig.) — 933 F.3d 1136 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: putative class of residential and commercial Sunday Ticket subscribers (plaintiffs) v. the NFL, its 32 teams and DirecTV; theory: interlocking agreements: the Teams-NFL Agreement pooling the teams' telecast rights and the NFL-DirecTV Agreement giving DirecTV exclusive distribution of out-of-market games; subject: party=putative class of residential and commercial Sunday Ticket subscribers (plaintiffs) v. the NFL, its 32 teams and DirecTV; theory=interlocking agreements: the Teams-NFL Agreement pooling the teams' telecast rights and the NFL-DirecTV Agreement giving DirecTV exclusive distribution of out-of-market games | subscribers paying higher prices for a bundled out-of-market package because output of telecasts is restricted | To plead the fourth element, antitrust standing or antitrust injury, plaintiffs must allege that they were harmed by the injury to competition.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [42374:42517] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.Fans who want to watch other out-of-market games cannot purchase games individually or by team, but are required to buy the entire package of NFL games.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [16211:16363] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.In 2015, the cost of a basic Sunday Ticket package was $251.94 annually for residential subscribers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [16492:16592] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.This output limitation in turn results in prices for out-of-market games being higher than they would be in the absence of the conspiracy.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [45961:46099] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.Accordingly, we conclude that Illinois Brick is not applicable here because the complaint adequately alleges that DirecTV conspired with the NFL and the NFL Teams to limit the production of telecasts to one per game, and that plaintiffs suffered antitrust injury due to this conspiracy to limit output.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [50111:50413] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9. |
| Mucky Duck v. Directv, LLC (In re Nat'l Football League's Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig.) — 933 F.3d 1136 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Presumptive Rule of Reason burden-shifting analysis (antitrust market + anticompetitive effect vs procompetitive justification) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: putative class of residential and commercial Sunday Ticket subscribers (plaintiffs) v. the NFL, its 32 teams and DirecTV; theory: interlocking agreements: the Teams-NFL Agreement pooling the teams' telecast rights and the NFL-DirecTV Agreement giving DirecTV exclusive distribution of out-of-market games; subject: party=putative class of residential and commercial Sunday Ticket subscribers (plaintiffs) v. the NFL, its 32 teams and DirecTV; theory=interlocking agreements: the Teams-NFL Agreement pooling the teams' telecast rights and the NFL-DirecTV Agreement giving DirecTV exclusive distribution of out-of-market games The court applies the rule of reason to both the horizontal and the vertical agreement (league sports, NCAA), views them together rather than separately, and rejects the arguments that cooperation is needed to produce telecasts at all, that output is not reduced because every game airs somewhere, and that no relevant market or market power is pleaded. | league-wide pooling of telecast rights limiting output to one telecast per game; naked output restriction as in NCAA v. Board of Regents, so no market definition needed | Alternatively, plaintiffs can show that a restraint injures competition if they plausibly allege "a naked restriction on price or output," such as "an agreement not to compete in terms of price or output."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [23710:23915] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.Under the terms of the Teams-NFL and NFL-DirecTV Agreements, no individual NFL team is permitted to sell its telecasting rights independently.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [26142:26284] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.The complaint alleges that defendants have limited output by restricting the quantity of telecasts available for sale, and that the NFL has set a uniform quantity of telecasts of football games-one per game-with no regard to the actual consumer demand for the telecasts.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [39090:39360] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.And in another form of media, radio broadcasting, plaintiffs allege that the NFL Teams already negotiate individual radio broadcasting contracts.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [37687:37832] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.Thus, Sunday Ticket subscribers have access to both local and out-of-market games.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [15530:15612] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.We conclude that the complaint adequately alleges the element of injury to competition by alleging that the interlocking Teams-NFL and NFL-DirecTV Agreements injure competition.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [42090:42267] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9. |
| Mucky Duck v. Directv, LLC (In re Nat'l Football League's Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig.) — 933 F.3d 1136 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: putative class of residential and commercial Sunday Ticket subscribers (plaintiffs) v. the NFL, its 32 teams and DirecTV; theory: interlocking agreements: the Teams-NFL Agreement pooling the teams' telecast rights and the NFL-DirecTV Agreement giving DirecTV exclusive distribution of out-of-market games; subject: party=putative class of residential and commercial Sunday Ticket subscribers (plaintiffs) v. the NFL, its 32 teams and DirecTV; theory=interlocking agreements: the Teams-NFL Agreement pooling the teams' telecast rights and the NFL-DirecTV Agreement giving DirecTV exclusive distribution of out-of-market games Extends the Ninth Circuit's co-conspirator reading of Illinois Brick (Shamrock Foods, ATM Fee) from price-fixing to output-restriction conspiracies. Judge Smith dissents on exactly this point. | direct purchasers from a distributor alleged to be a co-conspirator of the upstream rights holders in an output restriction | In other words, when co-conspirators have jointly committed the antitrust violation, a plaintiff who is the immediate purchaser from any of the conspirators is directly injured by the violation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [45453:45647] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.Additionally, in order to subscribe to the Sunday Ticket, consumers must also purchase a basic television package from DirecTV.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [16364:16491] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.According to the complaint, the conspiracy involves both the Teams-NFL agreement and the NFL-DirecTV agreement, which work together as a single conspiracy to limit the output of NFL telecasts.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [45768:45960] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9.Even though DirecTV is the immediate seller to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' allegation that they were directly injured by the conspiracy among the NFL teams, the NFL, and DirecTV is sufficient to allege antitrust standing for purposes of surviving a motion to dismiss.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_933.jsonl#/f3d/933/1136-01; Unicode character offsets [46394:46665] (end exclusive); SHA-256 42db1f4be612dc14ab467043a16aad8f736e97a31b6f073cfa1f940151d3b1e9. |