The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday reinstated a Los Angeles jury's finding that the National Football League violated antitrust law by overcharging subscribers to its Sunday Ticket television package, according to the Daily Journal. The same three-judge panel ordered a new trial on damages after concluding that jurors improperly calculated their $4.7 billion award. The Daily Journal's report carries a Nov. 2, 2026 date.
The panel reversed a ruling by now-retired U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez, who had excluded testimony from two of the plaintiffs' witnesses, the Daily Journal reported. Bloomberg Law, in a report dated Oct. 30, 2026, described the same outcome: the appeals court affirmed the jury's liability finding and ordered a new trial that could again expose the league to billions of dollars in damages.
The two accounts differ in emphasis on the damages question. Bloomberg Law states that the panel said the judge was correct in tossing the calculation of the $4.7 billion award and that the consumers who sued are entitled to a new trial. The Daily Journal's available text says the panel ordered a new trial on damages after finding jurors improperly calculated the award, but does not explicitly address whether the judge was right to discard that calculation.
The underlying case followed a 2024 jury trial, according to Bloomberg Law. The jury found the NFL violated antitrust law through its Sunday Ticket package, a subscription service that carries out-of-market game broadcasts. The $4.7 billion award was the damages figure the jury calculated, and it is now set aside pending a new damages trial.
For readers outside the courtroom, the practical effect is that the liability finding stands while the money question reopens. The appeals court did not simply restore the full award, nor did it wipe out the verdict. It split the outcome: liability affirmed, damages retried. That distinction matters because the case can continue without the plaintiffs having to relitigate whether the NFL broke the law.
The Daily Journal's report is dated Nov. 2, 2026, while Bloomberg Law's report carries an Oct. 30, 2026 timestamp. The two dates are close but not identical, and the difference appears to reflect publication timing rather than a substantive disagreement about the ruling. Both accounts describe a Friday decision by a three-judge 9th Circuit panel.
One limit on the record: the Daily Journal text available here is truncated, cutting off mid-sentence after noting that the panel reversed Gutierrez's ruling excluding testimony from two plaintiffs' witnesses. Bloomberg Law's account is also partially paywalled. Readers should treat the shared facts, the revived liability verdict and the ordered damages retrial, as the firm ground, and the finer points of the evidentiary ruling as less settled in these excerpts.
Why it matters
The ruling keeps alive one of the largest antitrust challenges to the NFL's broadcast model. Liability stands, so the league faces a second damages trial and renewed exposure to billions of dollars, while subscribers keep a path to recovery.
Builder angle
For anyone building or pricing subscription products, the case is a reminder that bundling and exclusivity arrangements draw antitrust scrutiny. The liability finding survived appeal, so the structure of Sunday Ticket remains under a legal cloud even as the damages figure is recalculated.
What to watch next
Watch for the scheduling of the new damages trial and how the plaintiffs' excluded witness testimony is handled on remand. Also watch whether either side seeks further review after the 9th Circuit's ruling.
Sources
- dailyjournal-prod.herokuapp.com Source checked 2026-11-02
- news.bloomberglaw.com Source checked 2026-11-02