- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Disney, Warner Bros, Fox Pleads US Court Of Appeals To Lift Ban On Venu Sports Service Launch
Disney, Warner Bros, Fox Pleads US Court Of Appeals To Lift Ban On Venu Sports Service Launch
Sports streaming service FuboTV had sued the major media companies accusing them of violating antitrust laws
Media companies Walt Disney, Warner Bros Discovery, and Fox have approached the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to reverse a ruling that blocked the launch of their Venu Sports streaming service.
They argued that a district court judge erred in halting the debut on antitrust grounds, denying consumers access to a new, low-cost service meant for price-conscious sports fans who dropped out of the traditional TV ecosystem or never subscribed to it.
Early last year, rival sports streaming service FuboTV sued the three major media companies stating that Venu Sports would violate US antitrust law by reducing competition and driving up prices.
Sensing that Fubo had rightfully raised the antitrust claims, the judge issued the injunction temporarily barring Venu's launch.
In their court filing, the media companies argued, “The district court's injunction forecloses competitive entry, decreases consumer choice and denies consumers lower prices - all with the effect of shielding Fubo from competition. Thus, the decision should be reversed.”
The issue is bundling, in which the media companies require distributors like Fubo to carry a package of programming, including fewer desirable channels, to gain access to valuable live sports.
Fubo stated that ‘forced bundling’ prevented it from offering a sports-centric service an exception the media companies made for their own joint venture, Venu Sports.
The Department of Justice (DoJ), New York, Illinois, California and other states urged the Court of Appeals to uphold the preliminary injunction. It cited the district court's findings that restrictions on competition among joint-venture partners would effectively prevent other sports-only services from emerging.
It added that it would grant the media companies, who collectively control about 54 percent of US sports rights, dominance in distributing sports-focused TV packages to consumers.
The DoJ stated, "The district court found that (the media companies) were less likely, after forming Venu, to unbundle that content for other distributors like Fubo, wishing to create their own sports-centric offerings. The foreclosure would harm competition in the live pay TV market.”