The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a prior judgment favoring the National Football League (NFL) in a significant antitrust case involving DirecTV subscribers. The court's decision, filed on October 30, 2026, affects millions of subscribers who claimed they were overcharged for the NFL's "Sunday Ticket" package due to the league's alleged anti-competitive practices. This ruling is crucial as it reinstates the jury's liability verdict and orders a new trial on damages, potentially leading to a substantial financial impact on the NFL.

The case, known as Ninth Inning Inc. v. National Football League, Inc. (Docket No. 24-5691), centers around antitrust claims made by a class of DirecTV subscribers who argued that the NFL's agreements with media distributors inflated the prices for its game telecasts. The court's ruling underscores the importance of expert testimony in antitrust cases and may set a precedent for how such cases are evaluated in the future.

Background

The plaintiffs in this case include Ninth Inning Inc., 1465 3rd Ave. Rest. Corp., and individual subscribers Robert Gary Lippincott, Jr. and Jonathan Frantz. They filed a class action lawsuit against the NFL and its affiliated companies, including DirecTV, in 2015. The plaintiffs alleged that the NFL's agreements limited competition and caused them to pay inflated prices for the "Sunday Ticket" package, which allows subscribers to watch out-of-market NFL games.

The NFL, which consists of 32 professional football teams, has long been a dominant force in American sports. The league's broadcasting agreements, particularly the "NFL-DirecTV Agreement," have been scrutinized for potentially violating antitrust laws. The plaintiffs argued that these agreements restricted access to out-of-market games and artificially raised prices, harming consumers.

The case progressed through the courts, with the district court initially dismissing the plaintiffs' claims. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed this decision, allowing the case to proceed. The district court later certified two classes of subscribers for the lawsuit, enabling residential and commercial subscribers to pursue their claims collectively.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit's recent ruling reversed the district court's judgment as a matter of law for the NFL and affirmed the order for a new trial on damages. The court found that the district court had abused its discretion by excluding the plaintiffs' expert testimony, which was critical in establishing their claims of antitrust injury and damages.

The court ruled, "Expert opinions are neither unfounded nor unreliable merely because they are impeachable. By inquiring beyond the reliability of the experts’ methods and the sufficiency of their data, the district court exceeded its gatekeeping role under Federal Rule of Evidence 702."

This ruling reinstates the jury's liability verdict, which had previously found the NFL liable for its anti-competitive practices. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs needed to prove their injury and damages through expert testimony, which the district court had improperly excluded.

However, the Ninth Circuit also upheld the district court's decision to grant a new trial on damages, stating that the jury's method of calculating damages was flawed. The court noted that the jury's award did not properly reflect the evidence presented during the trial.

Impact

The Ninth Circuit's ruling has significant implications for the NFL and its broadcasting agreements. By reinstating the jury's liability verdict, the court has opened the door for the plaintiffs to pursue a new trial on damages, which could result in substantial financial penalties for the NFL. This decision may also encourage other consumers to pursue similar claims against large corporations accused of anti-competitive practices.

The ruling reinforces the importance of expert testimony in antitrust cases, highlighting that courts must carefully evaluate the admissibility of such evidence without unduly restricting the jury's ability to weigh the facts. This case could set a precedent for future antitrust litigation, particularly in the realm of sports broadcasting and consumer rights.

What's Next

The NFL may seek to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, although it remains to be seen whether the high court will take up the case. Additionally, the new trial on damages is expected to take place in the near future, allowing the plaintiffs to present their case once again and potentially secure compensation for the alleged overcharges they faced.