Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

[ODogg]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

No, that is how capitalism works, companies do their best to put out a product, maximize profits and follow the rules. As long as they are doing all three of those things then putting competition out of business is the fastest way to accomplish maximizing profits. There was nothing done here by EA nor the NFL to break any rules so there should be no issue with them attempting to maximize their profit margin.

It's not EA's fault because they were at the mercy of the NFL. If they had declined to accept the NFL's offer of exclusivity they would have seen it go to another company and thus impact their company's bottom line significantly. EA put forth the only option that was available to them, offer the necessary money to secure the exclusive agreement. If they had not then 2K would have gotten the contract and I seriously doubt so many folks would be here wanting 2K to be on the bad end of this lawsuit.

The NFL cannot, nor should not be sued, because they have the right to sell their exclusive product to all companies or one company, as they see fit. As I stated before, they cannot be sued based upon them holding some sort of monopoly on their product considering it's not a product or service that is something that is critical to the public welfare (such as wood, water, coal, natural gas, etc). Take the NFL Sunday Ticket for example, the NFL and DirecTV could raise the price of that to $3,000 per year if they wanted and there's not a damned thing anyone could do about it. If you don't want it then don't pay it. It's the NFL's product and they should be able to manage (or mismanage) it any way they see fit.

[LiquorLogic]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

Why not? The entire suit depends on the assumption that 2K would've strayed from this "typical" pricing for the foreseeable future. 2K lowered all their games for their 2K5 versions. Both MLB and NBA experienced price increases in subsequent years. While we obviously don't know because of the exclusivity deal, 2K's behavior with their other budget-priced sports titles suggests that their NFL game's price would've increased. 2K5's price point was a one-year anomaly, and shouldn't be used as the base line for setting prices.



And thus begs the question...why would the $30 price of the 2005 year become the new standard pricing for Madden games?

Again, publishers aren't entitled to a certain price point. The courts couldn't care less about "standard" pricing. Whether 2k6 would've have sold for $20, $30, $40, or $50 dollars the following year are all assumptions. This case is about facts. The fact remains that EA lowered the price of Madden to compete, got rid of the competition, and then returned Madden to it's original price.

[LiquorLogic]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

No, that is how capitalism works, companies do their best to put out a product, maximize profits and follow the rules. As long as they are doing all three of those things then putting competition out of business is the fastest way to accomplish maximizing profits. There was nothing done here by EA nor the NFL to break any rules so there should be no issue with them attempting to maximize their profit margin.

It's not EA's fault because they were at the mercy of the NFL. If they had declined to accept the NFL's offer of exclusivity they would have seen it go to another company and thus impact their company's bottom line significantly. EA put forth the only option that was available to them, offer the necessary money to secure the exclusive agreement. If they had not then 2K would have gotten the contract and I seriously doubt so many folks would be here wanting 2K to be on the bad end of this lawsuit.

The NFL cannot, nor should not be sued, because they have the right to sell their exclusive product to all companies or one company, as they see fit. As I stated before, they cannot be sued based upon them holding some sort of monopoly on their product considering it's not a product or service that is something that is critical to the public welfare (such as wood, water, coal, natural gas, etc). Take the NFL Sunday Ticket for example, the NFL and DirecTV could raise the price of that to $3,000 per year if they wanted and there's not a damned thing anyone could do about it. If you don't want it then don't pay it. It's the NFL's product and they should be able to manage (or mismanage) it any way they see fit.

You put competition out of business, legally, by offering a better product, or a cheaper product of the same quality. You don't make a deal that prevents you competitor competing altogether. Also, in case you haven't heard, the SCOTUS doesn't consider the NFL a single-entity. Single entities can decide to partner up with one company exclusively, but multiple entities, which the NFL is, can't conspire to exclude a competitor from the market. DirectTV is one company;DirectTV, to my knowledge, is not comprised of 32 separate companies.

[ODogg]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

You're argument would make sense if EA made the deal themselves but they didn't, they made it with the NFL who owns the product to sell to whomever they desire. In this case they chose ONE company so that's their call, not EA's.

Oh and neither is EA 32 separate companies.

[tlc12576]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

Again, publishers aren't entitled to a certain price point. The courts couldn't care less about "standard" pricing. Whether 2k6 would've have sold for $20, $30, $40, or $50 dollars the following year are all assumptions. This case is about facts. The fact remains that EA lowered the price of Madden to compete, got rid of the competition, and then returned Madden to it's original price.

I don't see why people are acting as is Liquor's point has no logic to it.(haha) Unless I am mistaken, part of the antitrust law is to prevent collusion between entities to create a monopoly also. With all the facts together, a pretty clear picture is painted that makes for a compelling argument that collusion took place, between the NFL and EA, to eliminate competition and allow EA to sell Madden at its' original, higher price.

[RaychelSnr]

You put competition out of business, legally, by offering a better product, or a cheaper product of the same quality. You don't make a deal that prevents you competitor competing altogether. Also, in case you haven't heard, the SCOTUS doesn't consider the NFL a single-entity. Single entities can decide to partner up with one company exclusively, but multiple entities, which the NFL is, can't conspire to exclude a competitor from the market. DirectTV is one company;DirectTV, to my knowledge, is not comprised of 32 separate companies.

That's a very loose and very wrong interpretation of how the American Needle case decision was worded. Each NFL club can still decide to collectively enter into agreements together -- just the NFL cannot negotiate on their behalf without an agreement between each team. This is what the Plantiffs are going to have to prove, hattip to Law Professor Marc Edelman, who I hope to have an interview with on OS soon:

A plaintiff is going to have to show three things: (1) that the NFL clubs collectively exercise market power in a some relevant market related to video games, (2) that the NFL’s exclusive licensing practices overall are anti-competitive in this market, and (3) that as a result of the NFL’s exclusive licensing practices consumers have been harmed through either higher prices or a reduction of output within that relevant market.

So basically, this case has to prove that EA and the NFL's practices are a part of a singular football market (which is easily disproved by showing how other games affect the sales of Madden which aren't football games). Then if they somehow proved a market exists, they'd have to show that how the NFL divvies out their license was anti-competitive -- which means they'd have to purposefully shut out companies other than Take Two from negotiations. So long as a bid is done for the license, the process is competitive. Then, if they somehow proved that, they'd have to prove material harm to the consumer either by price gouging or by purposeful manipulation of game quantities. Which we already know that case is NOT valid because to gouge prices you have to price your game at a level well above what the market demands and there be no other option to turn to. You say the other games don't matter BUT THEY DO because that's the market Madden is operating in. This is a simple set of facts to dissect. Now what you do with them is up to you

[ODogg]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

tlc - you cannot have a monopoly on a privately held copyright. No one is stopping football video games from being made here (APF2K8 anyone??). Why is that so hard for people to understand??

[RaychelSnr]

I don't see why people are acting as is Liquor's point has no logic to it.(haha) Unless I am mistaken, part of the antitrust law is to prevent collusion between entities to create a monopoly also. With all the facts together, a pretty clear picture is painted that makes for a compelling argument that collusion took place, between the NFL and EA, to eliminate competition and allow EA to sell Madden at its' original, higher price.

I could make a compelling argument that there is a group of pink lizards which live in my basement and play Jazz music as well, but it doesn't mean it can be proven in a court of law.

People are assuming collusion of some sort took place between EA and the NFL, and currently there is only wild speculation from people who hate EA about it, but there is zero proof that collusion took place. From all accounts, the manner in which EA got the NFL license was done via a fair bidding process which everyone, including Take Two, had the opportunity to bid. The only way you can prove the action was wrong is to prove that bidding process was fixed in EA's favor. And as I said in my blog, short of having Roger Goddell's hard drive with e-mails between him and EA Execs, that case is going to have some issues.

[tlc12576]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

That's a very loose and very wrong interpretation of how the American Needle case decision was worded. Each NFL club can still decide to collectively enter into agreements together -- just the NFL cannot negotiate on their behalf without an agreement between each team. This is what the Plantiffs are going to have to prove, hattip to Law Professor Marc Edelman, who I hope to have an interview with on OS soon:



So basically, this case has to prove that EA and the NFL's practices are a part of a singular football market (which is easily disproved by showing how other games affect the sales of Madden which aren't football games). Then if they somehow proved a market exists, they'd have to show that how the NFL divvies out their license was anti-competitive -- which means they'd have to purposefully shut out companies other than Take Two from negotiations. So long as a bid is done for the license, the process is competitive. Then, if they somehow proved that, they'd have to prove material harm to the consumer either by price gouging or by purposeful manipulation of game quantities. Which we already know that case is NOT valid because to gouge prices you have to price your game at a level well above what the market demands and there be no other option to turn to. You say the other games don't matter BUT THEY DO because that's the market Madden is operating in. This is a simple set of facts to dissect. Now what you do with them is up to you

Ok MMChris, was the American Needle case a civil suit though? I am NOT a lawyer but I have watched enough Judge Judy, Mathis, etc, to know that the burden of proof for a civil suit is only that it what your are accusing is more likely than not. Like with OJ Simpson's murder trial case vs the civil suit that was brought against him.

With the burden of proof being more likely than not for this civil case, the facts present a good argument for this suit to win.

[tlc12576]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

I could make a compelling argument that there is a group of pink lizards which live in my basement and play Jazz music as well, but it doesn't mean it can be proven in a court of law.

People are assuming collusion of some sort took place between EA and the NFL, and currently there is only wild speculation from people who hate EA about it, but there is zero proof that collusion took place. From all accounts, the manner in which EA got the NFL license was done via a fair bidding process which everyone, including Take Two, had the opportunity to bid. The only way you can prove the action was wrong is to prove that bidding process was fixed in EA's favor. And as I said in my blog, short of having Roger Goddell's hard drive with e-mails between him and EA Execs, that case is going to have some issues.

No, if they can show that EA approached the NFL in the past for an exclusive license, was rebuffed until immediately following the competitions price drop and maybe even directly link the price dropping to a loss of revenue to the NFL from this, that makes collusion seem "more likely than not".

[RaychelSnr]

No, if they can show that EA approached the NFL in the past for an exclusive license, was rebuffed until immediately following the competitions price drop and maybe even directly link the price dropping to a loss of revenue to the NFL from this, that makes collusion seem "more likely than not".

Seem and proof are two different things. It may seem like one thing, but without proof it's just unsubstantiated speculation. Like I told LL, don't think your emotions in this and just dissect the facts and the law with your head. Then start to form opinions on what you should do. In this case I think it's simple, you don't like Madden? Don't buy it. If the number of people who don't like the game actually didn't buy it, then at that point sales would suffer enough for EA to take notice. You might not buy the game, and that's good....you are acting like a consumer should. Otherwise, think about this with some rationality for a bit

[RaychelSnr]

Ok MMChris, was the American Needle case a civil suit though? I am NOT a lawyer but I have watched enough Judge Judy, Mathis, etc, to know that the burden of proof for a civil suit is only that it what your are accusing is more likely than not. Like with OJ Simpson's murder trial case vs the civil suit that was brought against him.

With the burden of proof being more likely than not for this civil case, the facts present a good argument for this suit to win.

This is an anti-trust case, as with the American Needle case. The crux of the argument is that Anti-Trust laws were broken and the consumer is entitled to damages. That's tough to prove in ANY setting.

PS, I'd think referencing watching Judge Judy as a basis for why a legal anti-trust case might pass or fail is grounds for disqualification to have your point heard

[tlc12576]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

Seem and proof are two different things. It may seem like one thing, but without proof it's just unsubstantiated speculation. Like I told LL, don't think your emotions in this and just dissect the facts and the law with your head. Then start to form opinions on what you should do. In this case I think it's simple, you don't like Madden? Don't buy it. If the number of people who don't like the game actually didn't buy it, then at that point sales would suffer enough for EA to take notice. You might not buy the game, and that's good....you are acting like a consumer should. Otherwise, think about this with some rationality for a bit

What am I saying that is irrational? Are you saying because I see the case in the way I described that means I hate EA or have some emotional vendetta? LOL

I am just trying to discuss the topic of this thread in a constructive manner and don't see how the some of the stuff you are saying is relevant to that.

I will ask you, in this class-action suit, is or is not the burden of proof for what is more likely than not? If not, then I will have to disbar myself from practicing law in OS forums.

[RaychelSnr]

What am I saying that is irrational? Are you saying because I see the case in the way I described that means I hate EA or have some emotional vendetta? LOL

I am just trying to discuss the topic of this thread in a constructive manner and don't see how the some of the stuff you are saying is relevant to that.

I will ask you, in this class-action suit, is or is not the burden of proof for what is more likely than not? If not, then I will have to disbar myself from practicing law in OS forums.

This stuff is relevant because it's THE CASE at hand. The case argues that EA violated anti-trust laws and that consumers are entitled to damages from those violations. So the Plantiffs have to establish that EA violated anti-trust laws with Madden, which will be next to impossible to do -- THEN they have to establish that consumers are entitled to damages -- which I haven't even discussed that aspect of the case because the first part will be so hard to prove it's difficult to see the case reaching that point to begin with.

If you can't see how everything I've said in this thread relates to this case, then you don't have a firm enough grasp on Anti-Trust law and this case to do more than speculate. That's fine, message boards are here for speculation -- and I appreciate your civility. I just assume (falsely) anyone arguing for this case is a Madden *****. For the most part that's true, but it's not completely true.

Anyways, just read my points again and then think about what I just said. You have to prove EA broke anti-trust laws...which since the NFL is NOT named, you have to have some smoking gun proof that the bid process for the NFL gaming license was fixed so EA would win it. Otherwise, from what we know, EA obtained the NFL license in a legal manner. The American Needle case doesn't change that (it might change how future license bids are handled however). The only way this gets prosecuted and EA has to pay up is if it is proven that they obtained the NFL license in a non-competitive manner. Otherwise, the NFL can market it's brand HOWEVER it likes in terms of the terms of its video game brand licensing and EA simply won the bid. Is that popular among gamers? No. But it's the law.

[LiquorLogic]

Re: Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

You're argument would make sense if EA made the deal themselves but they didn't, they made it with the NFL who owns the product to sell to whomever they desire. In this case they chose ONE company so that's their call, not EA's.

Oh and neither is EA 32 separate companies.

EA approached the NFL for years for exclusivity. It wasn't until the price war that the NFL agreed go exclusive.

EA doesn't have to be 32 separate companies. They made a deal with 32 separate companies to freeze out the competition. The NFL did that with the American Needle, and now the NFL is currently being sued. The NFL can sell the use of their brand to whomever the want, but they can't exclude whomever they want.