字号·· | 护眼
美联社

上诉法院恢复针对NFL的“周日票”反垄断判决Appellate court revives 'Sunday Ticket' antitrust verdict against the NFL

点「原文对照」整页切到原文,或双击某段只看那段的原文。

2024年6月17日,在洛杉矶,一起由“周日门票”订阅用户提起的集体诉讼的案件文件被推入联邦法院。(美联社照片/达米安·多瓦尔加内斯,资料图)Case documents for a class-action lawsuit filed by "Sunday Ticket" subscribers are wheeled into federal court on June 17, 2024, in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File)

乔·里迪(JOE REEDY) 联邦上诉法院周五恢复了“周日票”(Sunday Ticket)订阅者提起的一项集体诉讼的判决,该诉讼指控美国国家橄榄球联盟(NFL)违反反垄断法,这距离一名联邦法官推翻陪审团认定联盟需赔偿 47 亿美元的裁决已过去两年多。

JOE REEDY A verdict in a class-action lawsuit filed by “Sunday Ticket” subscribers claiming the NFL broke antitrust laws was revived by a federal appeals court on Friday, more than two years after a federal judge reversed a jury’s decision that found the league liable for $4.7 billion in damages.

美国第九巡回上诉法院将案件发回洛杉矶联邦地区法院,恢复陪审团的裁决并就赔偿金额举行新的审判。双方律师在裁决后表示,正在考虑各自的应对方案。

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to the district court in Los Angeles to reinstate the jury’s verdict and hold a new trial on damages. Attorneys for both sides said they are considering their options after the ruling.

该诉讼涵盖美国 240 万住宅订阅用户和 4.8 万商业用户,他们在 2011 至 2022 赛季期间付费购买了 DirecTV 的“周日票”套餐以观看外地比赛。诉讼指控联盟以虚高价格出售该套餐,违反反垄断法。订阅者还称,NFL 将“周日票”仅在一家卫星电视提供商上提供,限制了竞争。

The lawsuit covered 2.4 million residential subscribers and 48,000 businesses in the United States who paid for the “Sunday Ticket” package on DirecTV of out-of-market games from the 2011 through 2022 seasons. The lawsuit claimed the league broke antitrust laws by selling the package at an inflated price. The subscribers also said the NFL restricted competition by offering “Sunday Ticket” only on a satellite provider.

陪审团于 2024 年 6 月判决向住宅和商业订阅者赔偿 47 亿美元。一个月后,美国联邦地区法官菲利普·古铁雷斯(Philip Gutierrez)推翻了该判决,裁定订阅者一方两名专家证人的证词本应被排除。古铁雷斯认定这两名证人使用的方法论存在缺陷。但由三名法官组成的上诉小组裁定,古铁雷斯不应排除这些证词。

A jury awarded $4.7 billion in damages to residential and commercial subscribers in June 2024. The award was thrown out one month later by U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez after he ruled the testimony of two expert witnesses for the subscribers should have been excluded. Gutierrez determined the two witnesses used flawed methodologies. But a three-judge appellate panel ruled Gutierrez should not have excluded that testimony.

“意见仅因可被弹劾,并不意味着毫无根据或不可靠,”巡回法院法官安东尼·D·约翰斯通写道。“此类意见应由陪审团在审判中权衡。一旦陪审团作出裁决,除非证据明显不支持该裁决,否则裁决必须维持。”

“Opinions are neither unfounded nor unreliable merely because they are impeachable,” circuit court Judge Anthony D. Johnstone wrote. “Such opinions are for the jury to weigh at trial. Once a jury does so, its verdict must stand unless it is clearly not supported by the evidence.”

约翰斯通在意见中还写道:“理性的陪审员可能会争论大学和职业橄榄球转播是否足够相似,或者在没有NFL反竞争行为的情况下,非本地市场NFL比赛将如何变得可观看。但这些问题应由陪审团决定。”上诉法院确实认定,陪审团在确定损害赔偿金时未遵循古铁雷斯的指示,且该裁定基于猜测或推测,并自行进行了计算。

Johnstone also wrote in his opinion that: “Reasonable jurors may debate whether college and professional football telecasts are sufficiently similar or how out-of-market NFL games would have become available in the absence of the NFL’s anticompetitive conduct. But those questions are for the jury to decide.”The appellate court did find that the jury did not follow Gutierrez’s instructions in determining damages and that it was based on guesswork or speculation and came up with its own calculations.

NFL在一份声明中表示:“我们继续认为,我们的媒体分发策略——即在参赛球队所在市场通过免费地面电视转播100%的NFL比赛,并全国性分发我们最受欢迎的比赛,同时辅以包括RedZone(红区频道)、Sunday Ticket(周日门票)和NFL Plus在内的许多额外选择——远远是所有体育和娱乐领域中最对球迷友好的分发模式。”

The NFL said in a statement: “We continue to believe that our media distribution strategy — which features 100 percent of NFL games broadcast on free over-the-air television in the markets of the participating teams and national distribution of our most popular games, supplemented by many additional choices including RedZone, Sunday Ticket and NFL Plus — is by far the most fan-friendly distribution model in all of sports and entertainment.”

该诉讼最初于2015年由旧金山的Mucky Duck体育酒吧提起。2017年6月30日,美国地区法院法官贝弗利·里德·奥康奈尔驳回了该诉讼,并作出有利于NFL的裁决,因为她认为“Sunday Ticket”并未减少NFL比赛的产出,并且即使DirecTV(直接电视)可能收取了虚高价格,但这本身并不“构成对竞争的损害”,因为它必须与NFL谈判才能获得该套餐的转播权。

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2015 by the Mucky Duck sports bar in San Francisco. On June 30, 2017, U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell dismissed the lawsuit and ruled for the NFL because she said “Sunday Ticket” did not reduce output of NFL games and that even though DirecTV may have charged inflated prices, that did not “on its own, constitute harm to competition” because it had to negotiate with the NFL to carry the package.

两年后,拥有加利福尼亚州及其他八个州管辖权的第九巡回法院恢复了该案件。2023年,古铁雷斯裁定该案可作为集体诉讼进行,该审判于2024年6月举行。

Two years later, the 9th Circuit Court, which has jurisdiction over California and eight other states, reinstated the case. In 2023, Gutierrez ruled the case could proceed as a class action, which occurred in June 2024.

一个由五名男性和三名女性组成的陪审团裁定,NFL(美国国家橄榄球联盟)需向居民类用户(家庭订阅者)赔偿 46.1033167174 亿美元,向商业类用户(商业订阅者)赔偿 9692.82729 万美元。

A jury of five men and three women found the NFL liable for $4,610,331,671.74 in damages to the residential class (home subscribers) and $96,928,272.90 in damages to the commercial class (business subscribers).

由于根据联邦反垄断法,赔偿金额可判处三倍,NFL 最终可能面临 141.2177983392 亿美元的赔偿责任。

Since damages can be tripled under federal antitrust laws, the NFL could have ended up being liable for $14,121,779,833.92.

“周日门票”已于 2023 年作为一项为期七年的协议的一部分转移至 YouTube。点击此处查看美联社对 NFL 的完整报道。

The “Sunday Ticket” moved to YouTube in 2023 as part of a seven-year agreement. See AP’s full NFL coverage here

阅读媒体原文 ↗