A PYMNTS Company

DirecTV Urges Second Circuit to Revive Antitrust Lawsuit Against Nexstar

By  |  December 9, 2024

DirecTV is pressing the Second Circuit to reconsider its claims that Nexstar Media Group, alongside Mission Broadcasting and White Knight Broadcasting, colluded to inflate retransmission fees, according to Courthouse News. The appeal comes after a federal judge dismissed the case in March, finding DirecTV’s allegations speculative and unsupported by evidence of injury.

    Get the Full Story

    Complete the form to unlock this article and enjoy unlimited free access to all PYMNTS content — no additional logins required.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    Retransmission fees, a significant revenue stream for station owners like Nexstar—the largest television station owner in the United States—are payments required for distributors such as DirecTV to carry their programming. DirecTV argues that Nexstar and its partners engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to hike fees and retaliated against the satellite provider by pulling their content when it refused to comply.

    The lawsuit, originally filed in 2023, claims the alleged conspiracy caused DirecTV to lose subscribers and profits. During oral arguments on Monday, Paul Mezzina, representing DirecTV, stated that the harm to the company stems directly from the alleged collusion. “DirecTV’s injury flows from the anticompetitive aspect of the conspiracy,” Mezzina argued, highlighting the broadcasters’ capacity to impose fees above competitive rates.

    Read more: DirecTV’s $9.75 Billion Dish Acquisition Hinges on Bondholder Agreement

    However, the panel of judges expressed skepticism about whether DirecTV could demonstrate injury, given that the company did not pay the disputed higher fees. U.S. Circuit Judge Steven Menashi questioned whether a non-purchaser, like DirecTV, could claim harm as directly as a party that had paid inflated prices.

    Mezzina maintained that DirecTV faced harm regardless of its refusal to pay, pointing to the loss of access to content and subsequent subscriber erosion.

    The United States government weighed in as an amicus curiae, refraining from taking sides but criticizing the lower court’s dismissal of DirecTV’s claims. Andrew DeLaney, an appellate attorney with the Department of Justice, emphasized that the case carries implications beyond the immediate parties involved.

    Source: Courthouse News