Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Week That Was in MLB Antitrust Litig
08-09-2017, 12:49 PM
Post: #1
The Week That Was in MLB Antitrust Litig
Last week was relatively eventful for 2 pending antitrust lawsuits against Major League Baseball. On Thursday, the district court i sued an e sential decision in the Garber v. Office from the Commi sioner of Baseball suit challenging a number of MLBs television broadcasting practices underneath the Sherman Antitrust Act. Then later that same day, MLB officially asked the district court to dismi s the Miranda v. Office of the Commi sioner of Baseball case, a suit contending that MLBs minor league pay practices violate federal antitrust law. Lets start with the Garber case. As both Wendy Thurm and I previously discu sed on several occasions, the Garber suit involves allegations that several of MLBs television policies violate the Sherman Act. First, the plaintiffs contend that MLB and its regional sports network partners impose unreasonable blackout policies on fans, preventing individual RSNs from competing with one another in each teams a signed geographic territory. Absent these anticompetitive restrictions, the plaintiffs NIKE AIR MAX SEQUENT Shoes allege, a Red Sox fan living in California would, for example, have the option of subscribing to the New England Sports Network (NESN) to look at all Bostons game. The resulting competition would, theoretically, drive down the cost of sports programming for those baseball fans. Relatedly, the Garber plaintiffs also accuse MLB of violating antitrust law by selling only league-wide, pay-per-view subscription packages (MLB Extra Innings and MLB.tv), rather than allowing individual teams to provide their own competing out-of-market plans. This restriction on competition also allegedly increases the cost that out-of-market fans pay to watch baseball. Last year, the presiding judge within the Garber suit Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ruled that MLBs antitrust exemption did not apply in the case because television broadcasting wasn't sufficiently central to the busine s of baseball to fall inside the scope of their exemption. On Thursday, the Garber plaintiffs cleared another potential hurdle within the suit, with Judge Scheindlin certifying the case as a cla s action. Consequently, any outcome in the suit will cover all MLB fans adversely affected by MLBs television practices, rather than only those specific Nike Lunarglide 8 Men Shoes individuals named as plaintiffs in the case. At the same time, however, Judge Scheindlin determined that the cla s action lawsuit plaintiffs could only pursue injunctive relief against MLB, and not financial awards. In a nutshell, cla s action lawsuits are just appropriate in cases where all the potential plaintiffs in the event are similarly situated, and therefore the facts of 1 plaintiffs case are substantially the same as the ones from all of those other potential plaintiffs. Here, the extent that an individual fan continues to be overcharged because of MLBs existing television policies could vary dramatically. Fans of merely one out-of-market team might have paid not only if because of the option to buy only their teams games, for instance, while those who want to watch every MLB game will probably have been overcharged to some le ser degree given that they might have obtained a league-wide package anyway. Since the plaintiffs didn't propose a viable means that to look for the degree that different fans had been monetarily harmed by MLBs television practices, Judge Scheindlin effectively concluded that individual trials could be nece sary to measure the amount of each individual plaintiffs damages. (In comparison, all plaintiffs would, for the most part, be impacted equally if some of MLBs television policies were struck down via an injunction.) The takeaway coming from all this really is that fans won't receive a check in the mail should MLBs television practices ultimately be declared unlawful in the Garber case. However, if the court determines that MLBs existing policies violate the Sherman Act, then Judge Scheindlin could i sue an injunction forcing MLB to change its broadcasting rules. Overall, then, Thursdays rulings were a victory for baseball fans dreaming about a substantial switch to MLBs television blackout policies. The Garber case will move forward perfectly into a trial to become held at a yet-to-be-determined date (likely between 2016 or 2017). The legality of MLBs television practices will be judged underneath the so-called rule of reason, a balancing test in which the court will settle if MLBs restrictions are, on balance, pro- or anti-competitive, and thus legal or illegal. While the plaintiffs will reason that the plans are clearly anti-competitive for the reasons outlined Air Max 90 Unisex Shoes above MLB has several credible arguments it can a sert in defense from the existing rules. Ultimately, then, it is still too early to calculate who'll prevail at trial. Meanwhile, as noted above, MLB also filed a motion to dismi s a week ago in the Miranda v. Office of the Commi sioner of Baseball suit. As I explained at that time the Miranda case was filed last December, the suit alleges that MLB unlawfully suppre ses minor league players salaries in several ways. In particular, the Miranda plaintiffs a sert that MLB has violated the Sherman Act by unilaterally establishing a minor league salary scale on the league-wide basis, instead of allowing individual teams to determine their minor leaguers salaries on their own. Additionally, the case argues that MLB uses the first-year player draft to unlawfully prevent drafted players from selling their services towards the highest bidder Nike Air Huarache High Shoes instead allowing them to negotiate just with they that drafted them while also artificially reducing the size of players signing bonuses through its domestic and international signing bonus pool restrictions. At time, I noted that the Miranda suit faced at least one major hurdle: baseballs antitrust exemption. Not just has got the Supreme Court expre sly held the exemption pertains to MLBs treatment of minor league players (in its 1953 decision in Toolson v. Ny Yankees), but Congre s then arguably ratified this interpretation in the Curt Flood Act of 1998, which claims that it does not create, permit or imply a cause of action out of which to challenge underneath the antitrust laws any conduct, acts, practices, or agreement affecting employment to experience baseball at the minor league level. Not surprisingly, then, MLBs motion to dismi s the Miranda suit heavily emphasizes baseballs antitrust exemption, arguing the exemption clearly pertains to MLBs management of minor leaguers in light of both Toolson opinion and also the Curt Flood Act. While the plaintiffs will, of course, have an opportunity to react to these arguments, they'll likely prove hard to overcome, especially in the NIKE AIR ZOOM PEGASUS 33 Shoes district court level (which is bound through the prior Top court ruling). In addition, MLB also contends the California federal court where the Miranda suit was filed lacks personal jurisdiction over eight of the MLB teams named as defendants within the suit (Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Washington, the White Sox, and the Yankees). In particular, since these teams only occasionally travel to California to experience games, and do not maintain any permanent physical presence within the state (just like a minor league affiliate franchise), they contend that they are not susceptible to the courts jurisdiction. Generally, courts is only going to force a party to defend itself inside a particular state whether it keeps a sufficient degree of busine s operations within the jurisdiction; jetski from a Florida resident from unfairly having to visit Montana to defend himself in a lawsuit which has absolutely nothing to use their state, for instance. Some MLB teams made this same jurisdictional argument in the pending minor league minimum wage lawsuits that have been also filed within the same federal court in California using the judge in those cases indicating in February he was inclined to dismi s these teams from the litigation on jurisdiction grounds. However, the judge did grant the plaintiffs within the minimum wage lawsuits time for you to gather additional evidence concerning the MLB teams operations in California, and has not i sued a final ruling on the matter. A different judge presides over the Miranda suit, so he'll certainly not reach the same conclusion because the judge in the minimum wage cases on the jurisdictional i sue. Neverthele s, the fact that another judge in the same court has suggested that he is amenable for this argument bodes well for that eight teams a serting the defense. All in all, then, it is difficult to determine the Miranda plaintiffs defeating MLBs motion to dismi s the suit in the district court level. Their best hope is probably for that U.S. Supreme Court to overturn baseballs antitrust exemption, letting them proceed using their claims under the Sherman Act. And while a great Court appeal challenging the exemption is pending in San Jose, Californias lawsuit against MLB, the odds the Court will accept hear an appeal on the i sue are most likely Nike Free Men Shoes relatively slim. As a result, the motion to dismi s filed by MLB last week could very well doom the Miranda lawsuit.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)