In a federal class action in Los Angeles, subscribers allege that the NFL and its clubs pooled out-of-market broadcast rights and inflated Sunday Ticket prices to protect CBS and Fox broadcasts. A jury awarded $4.7B in June 2024, but the trial judge vacated the award in August 2024 while leaving the liability finding intact. The class’s appeal, argued before the Ninth Circuit in March 2026, awaits decision.
Latest development Sep 8, 2026
On September 8, 2026, Sportico reported that a Ninth Circuit ruling on the class’s appeal appeared imminent as the new NFL season began. No decision had issued by that date.
Why it matters
The appeal tests how far the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 shields league-wide media deals from antitrust challenge. The outcome could affect how U.S. sports leagues package and sell out-of-market broadcast rights, and whether subscribers recover damages.
Background
The litigation began in 2015, when residential and commercial subscribers to DirecTV’s NFL Sunday Ticket package sued the National Football League (NFL), its 32 member clubs, and DirecTV. The suits were consolidated as a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The subscribers allege that the league unlawfully pooled its teams’ out-of-market broadcast rights and sold them exclusively through a high-priced satellite package. They contend that this protected the value of the over-the-air broadcasts on CBS and Fox, in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. DirecTV later settled.
The district court dismissed the case in 2017. On August 13, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, reinstated the Sherman Act claims, and sent the case back for further proceedings. On remand, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez certified two classes in February 2023. They cover roughly 2.4 million residential subscribers and 48,000 commercial establishments that bought Sunday Ticket between 2011 and 2023.
A three-week jury trial opened in Los Angeles in June 2024. On June 27, 2024, the jury found the NFL liable and awarded $4.7B in damages. Under antitrust law, that sum would have trebled to about $14.1B. In August 2024, Judge Gutierrez granted the NFL’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and vacated the award without ordering a retrial. He ruled that the plaintiffs’ damages experts had relied on unreliable, speculative models, but he left the jury’s underlying liability finding intact.
The class appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which heard oral argument in March 2026. Press reports suggested the panel was skeptical of the district court’s decision to grant the NFL full judgment. On September 8, 2026, Sportico reported that a ruling appeared imminent, but no decision had issued. The appeal tests how far the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 protects the NFL’s league-wide media rights deals from antitrust scrutiny.
Timeline 10 events
-
OtherSportico reports ruling appears imminent
With no Ninth Circuit decision yet issued as the new NFL season began, Sportico reported that a ruling on the appeal appeared imminent.
9th Circuit Reviews NFL Sunday Ticket Case, Signals Potential Reversal
-
HearingNinth Circuit hears oral argument
A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel heard argument on the appeal and reportedly signaled skepticism toward the district court’s decision to grant the NFL full judgment as a matter of law.
9th Circuit Reviews NFL Sunday Ticket Case, Signals Potential Reversal
-
JudgmentJudge Gutierrez vacates verdict, rules for NFL
Judge Gutierrez granted the NFL’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding that the plaintiffs’ damages experts relied on guesswork and speculation. He wiped out the $4.7B award without ordering a retrial but left the jury’s liability finding undisturbed.
NFL Sunday Ticket $4.7 Billion Jury Verdict Thrown Out by JudgeExplainer-What's Next After Judge Tosses $4.7 Billion NFL 'Sunday Ticket' Verdict
-
JudgmentJury awards $4.7B, finds NFL liable
The jury found that the NFL and its clubs violated antitrust law by conspiring to inflate the price of out-of-market broadcasts. It awarded roughly $4.7B in damages, an amount that would treble to about $14.1B.
-
HearingJury trial begins in Los Angeles
A three-week jury trial opened before Judge Gutierrez, with Susman Godfrey representing the class and Wilkinson Stekloff leading the NFL’s defense.
-
AppealClass appeals to the Ninth Circuit
The plaintiff class appealed Judge Gutierrez’s post-trial ruling to the Ninth Circuit, docketed as No. 24-5493, while sports economists filed amicus support through Berger Montague.
In Re: National Football League's "Sunday Ticket" Antitrust Litigation
-
OrderJudge Gutierrez certifies two subscriber classes
One class covers roughly 2.4 million residential subscribers and the other about 48,000 commercial establishments that purchased Sunday Ticket from 2011 to 2023.
NFL Sunday Ticket Case Certified as Antitrust Class ActionNFL Sunday Ticket Antitrust Lawsuit Certified as Class Action
-
AppealNinth Circuit reverses dismissal, reinstates Sherman Act claims
The panel held that the complaint stated claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and sent the case back for further proceedings.
-
OrderDistrict court dismisses the complaint
The district court initially dismissed the subscribers’ antitrust claims.
-
FilingSubscribers sue NFL, its clubs, and DirecTV over Sunday Ticket
The antitrust suits were later consolidated as In re National Football League’s Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litigation before Judge Philip Gutierrez in the Central District of California.
In re National Football Leagues Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litigation
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the Ninth Circuit rule on the class’s appeal of the judgment vacating the $4.7 billion Sunday Ticket verdict by June 30, 2027?
- Ninth Circuit affirms NFL judgment38%
- Judgment vacated, new trial or remand27%
- Ninth Circuit reinstates jury award18%
- Still pending on June 30, 202712%
- NFL settles with subscriber class5%
- Resolves by
- Jun 30, 2027in 8 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
Affirmance of the NFL’s judgment is the single most likely result, at 38%, with a ruling expected by June 30, 2027. The combined chance that the class wins some relief is 45%. Press reports of panel skepticism at the March 2026 argument offset the usual deference to trial-court rulings on expert damages evidence.
How it resolves. Resolved by the Ninth Circuit’s disposition in No. 24-5493 or by court filings, as of June 30, 2027. “Affirms” means the panel affirms judgment for the NFL on any ground. “Reinstates” means the panel reinstates the jury’s liability verdict and damages award in whole or in part, including with a remittitur. “New trial or remand” means the panel vacates the judgment for the NFL but orders a new trial or further proceedings without reinstating the award. “Settlement” means the parties publicly announce a settlement or file for approval of one before a decision issues. Otherwise the question is still pending.
Reasoning
Starting point. Counseled civil appeals decided after oral argument in the federal courts of appeals, especially appeals from post-verdict judgments as a matter of law: Federal appellate courts reverse roughly 10% to 15% of civil judgments overall. The rate rises to about 20% to 30% for counseled appeals that reach oral argument and a published opinion.
The starting point is the 20% to 30% reversal rate for argued civil appeals. Appeals from a judgment that overturns a jury verdict draw closer review, because the question is whether any reasonable jury could have found as it did. The record reports that the panel appeared skeptical of granting the NFL full judgment. That pushes the chance of vacatur above the base rate. If the panel vacates, a remand for a new damages trial is more likely than outright reinstatement of the $4.7 billion award, since the district court found the expert models unreliable. An affirmance on the Sports Broadcasting Act or on the expert rulings remains the leading single outcome. The appeal has been under submission for 6.8 months, which suggests a lengthy published opinion is coming, so a ruling by mid-2027 is likely but not certain. Settlement before decision is unlikely because both sides are waiting on a ruling that will reset leverage. Settlement becomes more plausible after a vacatur.
Reported panel skepticism toward full judgment for the NFL · Deferential review of trial court’s expert reliability findings · Sports Broadcasting Act scope as an alternative ground · Elapsed time since argument signals a detailed opinion · Treble damages exposure near $14.1 billion shapes settlement incentives
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Sep 24, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made