Judge Certifies Class-Action Football Game Pricing Lawsuit Against EA

[ODogg]

LiquorLogic - and just how is the deal "illegal"???

[LiquorLogic]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

LiquorLogic - and just how is the deal "illegal"???

The NFL is not considered a single entity, so for them to give out an exclusive license is illegal. The NFL has done with Reebok and EA what Coca-Cola has done with McDonalds : they basically have formed partnerships, exclusively, with one another. The NFL only sells their rights to EA, and McDonald's only sells soft drinks sold by Coca-Cola. McDonald's is one entity, but the NFL is comprised of 32 separate entities. Any way you slice it, exclusive deals, with the NFL, are illegal. If every team in the league signs an exclusive deal with EA, locking out any other competitor, it's still collusion; the NFL would still be behaving as a single entity, and the deal would be illegal.

[ODogg]

You are basing your entire logic on the decision of the American Needle case, a case in which even that court admitted the NFL could engage in some licensing as a single entity (***This is not a total loss for the NFL because the opinion says the League may engage in some activities as a single entity and disputes over those actions need to be judged on a case-by-case basis but "the activity at issue in this case is still concerted activity covered for [Sherman Antitrust Act] purposes.").

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2...trust-dispute/

In the case of the NFL and EA it's mere semantics in regards to the agreement. It's seriously doubtful any team in the NFL would wish to be left out of the videogame and thus give up the marketing share. To bypass this aspect of the law EA and the NFL would only have to throw out the current agreement and put in place the same agreement as negotiated by all 32 teams individually instead of as a collective whole. That is if this particular agreement would even be found to be null and void which it has not, as of yet, been found to be..

[ODogg]

Oh and just a note as well, the American Needle case applied specifically to that case and the NFL moving forward in how it does business. It did not strike down all in-place NFL contracts and agreements. That means that the current agreement is still legal and valid until a court says otherwise.

[LiquorLogic]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

You are basing your entire logic on the decision of the American Needle case, a case in which even that court admitted the NFL could engage in some licensing as a single entity (***This is not a total loss for the NFL because the opinion says the League may engage in some activities as a single entity and disputes over those actions need to be judged on a case-by-case basis but "the activity at issue in this case is still concerted activity covered for [Sherman Antitrust Act] purposes."). http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2...trust-dispute/ In the case of the NFL and EA it's mere semantics in regards to the agreement. It's seriously doubtful any team in the NFL would wish to be left out of the videogame and thus give up the marketing share. To bypass this aspect of the law EA and the NFL would only have to throw out the current agreement and put in place the same agreement as negotiated by all 32 teams individually instead of as a collective whole. That is if this particular agreement would even be found to be null and void which it has not, as of yet, been found to be..

I'm basing my logic on the fact that the case with American Needle sets a precedent. In a lower court the case was originally thrown out. The reason why it was thrown out was because the NFL was considered a single entity, so they were exempt from anti-trust scrutiny. The SCOTUS now says they're not a single entity, which is a huge blow to the NFL's case.

The NFL may be able engage on some activities as a single entity, but they can't conspire to eliminate competition, which is exactly what they did. That's the whole premise of the Sherman act; multiple entities cannot conspire with one another to eliminate competitors. Is the NFL 32 separate entities ? Did the NFL, all 32 franchises, conspire with EA to eliminate competition ? The answer to both of those questions is yes.

[LiquorLogic]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

Oh and just a note as well, the American Needle case applied specifically to that case and the NFL moving forward in how it does business. It did not strike down all in-place NFL contracts and agreements. That means that the current agreement is still legal and valid until a court says otherwise.

I know that, and I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL settled out of court with American Needle, and EA settles their case out of court. What these cases do is set precedent, as well as discourage EA and the NFL from renewing the exclusive license again.

If you got sued before for doing something, would you do it again even if you settled out of court the first time ? What would the courts think if the NFL, or EA, renewed the license, got sued, and settled out of court again ?

[bwburke94]

The real problem is GameStop, as always. The whole online pass mess was an attempt to stop GameStop from selling used copies. It didn't work.

[ODogg]

LiquorLogic - I agree that it does mean its very slightly less likely that they will renew it (combined with the fact that the money the NFL would want to renew it is going to be off the charts), however it really doesn't add much work to renewing it if they really want, they simply have to go to the teams and ask them do they want to be in the videogame or not. I doubt any team is going to say no. Personally I hope they don't renew it.

P.S. - I still disagree with the whole "NFL and EA" conspired to eliminate competition. To conspire it takes more than one party and the NFL is allowed legally to sell its trademark to whoever it wants to market it, there is no conspiracy on there part to eliminate competition, they are the deciders of what to do with the brand.