As a die-hard sports enthusiast and long-time subscriber of various streaming services, I can’t help but feel a mix of anticipation and concern over this ongoing legal battle between media giants and Fubo. The idea of having all my favorite sports channels under one roof sounds like a dream come true, but as a consumer who has seen the rise in subscription costs over the years, I worry about the potential impact on my wallet.
A federal judge has refused to throw out a legal case brought forth by major media companies seeking to combine their sports broadcasting licenses for a fresh streaming platform. This move faces opposition from competitor Fubo in the sports streaming market.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett made a decision that was not in favor of The Walt Disney Company, Fox Corporation, and Warner Bros. Discovery. The legal process, known as “discovery,” will move forward, and the trial is scheduled to begin in October 2023.
The decision, issued without a written order after oral arguments last week, comes after the court in August temporarily blocked a fall launch of the streaming bundle, which would’ve featured 15 channels of popular live sports. Subscribers would’ve been able to access a number of live, linear channels, including ESPN, Fox, ABC, TNT and TBS, as well as ESPN+. Between the three networks, they have rights to the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL, plus college sports and pro tennis. They collectively control over half the country’s TV rights to professional and college sports.
In a preliminary ruling, it was determined that Fubo could have successfully argued that the partnership would significantly decrease competition and restrict trade. If the platform had been launched, there would likely have been a rapid loss of Fubo’s subscribers, leading to the company’s bankruptcy, as concluded by Garnett. In simpler terms, the partnership was seen as potentially harmful for competition, and if it went ahead, Fubo might lose many customers, possibly leading to financial collapse.
The core issue revolves around claims that companies like Disney, Fox, and Warners use their ownership of essential sports broadcasts as a means to compel competitors to take numerous expensive, unwanted channels as part of a non-negotiable deal for accessing vital sports channels. It’s been suggested that these anticompetitive bundling practices cause consumer expenses to rise, as they are effectively made to pay for content they don’t consume.
In a potential worst-case situation, a judgment could be handed down that challenges the legitimacy of package deals in the media industry.
On Monday, Garnett rejected a request to split specific claims from the case and move them to a federal court in California.
Prior to going to trial, the court needs to first evaluate if there’s a disagreement of facts that requires a jury decision, through a process called summary judgment.
Read More
- Crypto ETPs hit $44.5b in YTD inflows amid Bitcoin surge
- AI16Z PREDICTION. AI16Z cryptocurrency
- Li Haslett Chen to Leave Warner Bros. Discovery Board
- POL PREDICTION. POL cryptocurrency
- Hong Kong Treasury says crypto is not a ‘target asset’ for its Exchange Fund
- Blockaid new dashboard to track Web3 activity and threats
- ‘Kraven the Hunter & ‘Madame Web’ Box Office Disaster Blamed on Media Scrutiny
- EXCLUSIVE: Alia Bhatt in talks with Dinesh Vijan for a supernatural horror thriller; Tentatively titled Chamunda
- Shiba Inu, Bonk, Pepe prices rebound: Beware of dead cat bounce
- The Best Fashion Audiobooks on Audible for Aspiring Stylists, Hypebeasts and Everyone In Between
2024-12-16 21:25