Consumer Sues NFL/DirecTV for Individual Team Availability

kidhawk · Jun 25, 2015

[urltargetblank]http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/19/nfl-directv-sued-over-sunday-ticket/[/urltargetblank]

How quickly will DirecTV’s settlement of a lawsuit challenging the NHL out-of-market package that prevents the purchase of one team’s games spawn a similar attack on DirecTV’s NFL Sunday Ticket package?

If the over/under was a week and you took the under, congratulations.

A class action attacking the Sunday Ticket package was filed Wednesday in California. PFT has obtained a copy of the complaint filed by Thomas Abrahamian against the NFL, DirecTV, and related defendants.

RolandDeschain · Jun 25, 2015

The NFL does need to be more fan-friendly for this kind of thing, IMO.

Scottemojo · Jun 25, 2015

The NFL and Direect TV opened themselves up to this with their advertising. They have for years pitched the idea of watching your favorite team no matter where you live. The advertising does not match the product. I don't actually have a problem with them only selling the all or nothing product, but they don't advertise that. They advertise things like a Jets fan in Miami getting to watch the Jets. Not a Jets fan in Miami getting to watch any game that is broadcast.

pmedic920 · Jun 25, 2015

I hate Dtv, the only reason I use them is for the Sunday ticket.
I'd love to be able to get a team specific package.

Popeyejones · Jun 26, 2015

Scottemojo":ltmlnjqx said:
The NFL and Direect TV opened themselves up to this with their advertising. They have for years pitched the idea of watching your favorite team no matter where you live. The advertising does not match the product. I don't actually have a problem with them only selling the all or nothing product, but they don't advertise that. They advertise things like a Jets fan in Miami getting to watch the Jets. Not a Jets fan in Miami getting to watch any game that is broadcast.

The only problem with that advertising would be if it wasn't true, and it IS true that a Jets fan in Miami can watch the Jets with the package.

Consumers have a right to buy products or not, they don't have a right to dictate for businesses how they bundle and sell their products.

It's like trying to sue a car company for not selling me a cheaper car without a radio because I don't want a radio.

TBH I can't imagine why DTV would agree to settle the NHL case.

EDIT:

Quoting 49AllTheTime from the webzone because he made the same point, but with a much better comparison than I did:

It's the whole Chris rock...how much is it for one rib..not one order..just one rib

That's basically the long and short of it, IMO.

JesterHawk · Jun 26, 2015

10 years ago, you couldn't buy MP3s. Then Napster, the market adjusts, now you can buy and download / stream music. Providers changed their delivery method to suit the consumer marketplace.

It will happen with TV and sports as well. This is just the first domino.

Milehighhawk · Jun 26, 2015

JesterHawk":1z1x12sq said:
10 years ago, you couldn't buy MP3s. Then Napster, the market adjusts, now you can buy and download / stream music. Providers changed their delivery method to suit the consumer marketplace.

It will happen with TV and sports as well. This is just the first domino.

Agreed. The larger the pirate market gets, the more it will force change.

Hasselbeck · Jun 26, 2015

Honestly the NBA did this.. surprised the NFL hasn't followed suit yet, especially if they open it up to all outlets.. cable/satellite/streaming

Of course DirecTV is paying a pretty penny to monopolize it, so I probably just answered my own question

rideaducati · Jun 27, 2015

I've been calling DirecTV for years suggesting that they offer specific team packages, but I never thought of bringing a lawsuit to make it happen. I hate having to pay for games that I have ZERO interest in watching.

SalishHawkFan · Jun 27, 2015

Hasselbeck":1dps3e8f said:
Honestly the NBA did this.. surprised the NFL hasn't followed suit yet, especially if they open it up to all outlets.. cable/satellite/streaming

Of course DirecTV is paying a pretty penny to monopolize it, so I probably just answered my own question

Monopolize it. That's the problem and that's why they're being sued is a good thing.

Popeyejones · Jun 29, 2015

JesterHawk":1h4ox10e said:
10 years ago, you couldn't buy MP3s. Then Napster, the market adjusts, now you can buy and download / stream music. Providers changed their delivery method to suit the consumer marketplace.

It will happen with TV and sports as well. This is just the first domino.

The marketplace adjustment you're talking about is in response to theft, though, and there is only one possible marketplace adjustment to theft (out of many) that consumers would like.

It's true that for music we've seen de-bundling as a response theft (from the sale of albums to individual songs), but that's not always the case (e.g. for film, television, and books the response has been to further bundle with Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, whatever Amazon's new book subscription service is called).

So, while the NFL could be like music industry in responding to piracy, they're ALREADY like the film, television, and book industry (or are already at the places those industries are going).

Put another way, "just wanting to watch the Seahawks" could very well end up being like "just wanting to watch House of Cards", where you CAN do that, but you've got to pay for the whole bundle to do it.

OkieHawk · Jun 29, 2015

I'm not that mad about the format the Sunday Ticket is currently in. While I do feel that it shouldn't be a monopoly, it actually gets me watching other games with teams that I have a passing interest in. Also, it makes my fantasy league that much more exciting if I can watch the other games.

ivotuk · Jun 29, 2015

What's BS is they black out Seahawks games in Alaska! We are NOT a local market! I should jump on this lawsuit. Just download the documents the other guy has submitted, change everything to Seahawks, and submit it locally

kidhawk · Jun 29, 2015

ivotuk":2gxplg8o said:
What's BS is they black out Seahawks games in Alaska! We are NOT a local market! I should jump on this lawsuit. Just download the documents the other guy has submitted, change everything to Seahawks, and submit it locally

I think someone at your local station just hates the Seahawks (probably a niners fan or something). When we're winning, the local station in Anchorage plays them every chance they get. The only issue I have here is the CBS affiliate likes to stick to teams like the Broncos every week, even when Seattle is a CBS game. Luckily that's not very often.

Seahawkfan80 · Jun 29, 2015

kidhawk":ulgef0v9 said:
ivotuk":ulgef0v9 said:

What's BS is they black out Seahawks games in Alaska! We are NOT a local market! I should jump on this lawsuit. Just download the documents the other guy has submitted, change everything to Seahawks, and submit it locally

Click to expand...

I think someone at your local station just hates the Seahawks (probably a niners fan or something). When we're winning, the local station in Anchorage plays them every chance they get. The only issue I have here is the CBS affiliate likes to stick to teams like the Broncos every week, even when Seattle is a CBS game. Luckily that's not very often.

Wow, I did not know you had tv up there....thought it was all watching the caribou roam and the salmon run. :mrgreen:

Figured you got the scores by indian method....drumbeats and all. :shock:

Hawks46 · Jul 1, 2015

Scottemojo":1dv7i30f said:
The NFL and Direect TV opened themselves up to this with their advertising. They have for years pitched the idea of watching your favorite team no matter where you live. The advertising does not match the product. I don't actually have a problem with them only selling the all or nothing product, but they don't advertise that. They advertise things like a Jets fan in Miami getting to watch the Jets. Not a Jets fan in Miami getting to watch any game that is broadcast.

Eh, this makes no sense to me. Their advertising says "a Jets fan in Miami can watch the Jets", well they can. They can also watch every other game that's on. You can also DVR other games and watch them later, like divisional games. People are suing because they don't want all the games, just their team. "I don't want all this, I just want MY team. I want it MY way. So i'm gonna sue you". Really ?

I don't see the leg they can stand on, and it's ridiculous that lawyers would even take this case. If you live in market, you get your team on a network. If you live out of market, you get the local regional games. If you don't like it, you can: A. go to a bar, B. pay to stream it on the internet, or C. pay for DirecTV. The fact that you actually have to pay for a certain service to even get this package should invalidate the entire complaint. You have to pay a premium price just to get the ability to get the service, which you then pay another premium for. So, you're willing to to this, but you want a different offering, so you're going to sue for it. Ridiculous.

On top of that, the NFL owns the rights to all their games. They can market and package that however they want. They also offer it for free on networks, so folks have no gripe there. (Oh, and Scotte, any usage of the word "you" was meant in a general perspective, no personal at you).

Then again, this is coming from California. You can literally sue someone down there for breaking your foot on their door when you try to break into their house. And win.

DTexHawk · Jul 2, 2015

rideaducati":wxk2ll7b said:
I've been calling DirecTV for years suggesting that they offer specific team packages, but I never thought of bringing a lawsuit to make it happen. I hate having to pay for games that I have ZERO interest in watching.

The problem with this thinking is that 95% of those that buy the package are doing just that, watching one team. And the market value of watching that one team has been set. The expenses of DTV don't change or go down just because the majority are watching 1 team, they have to provide all 32 across the nation.

Scottemojo · Jul 2, 2015

Hawks46":387eb04s said:
Scottemojo":387eb04s said:

The NFL and Direect TV opened themselves up to this with their advertising. They have for years pitched the idea of watching your favorite team no matter where you live. The advertising does not match the product. I don't actually have a problem with them only selling the all or nothing product, but they don't advertise that. They advertise things like a Jets fan in Miami getting to watch the Jets. Not a Jets fan in Miami getting to watch any game that is broadcast.

Click to expand...

Eh, this makes no sense to me. Their advertising says "a Jets fan in Miami can watch the Jets", well they can. They can also watch every other game that's on. You can also DVR other games and watch them later, like divisional games. People are suing because they don't want all the games, just their team. "I don't want all this, I just want MY team. I want it MY way. So i'm gonna sue you". Really ?

I don't see the leg they can stand on, and it's ridiculous that lawyers would even take this case. If you live in market, you get your team on a network. If you live out of market, you get the local regional games. If you don't like it, you can: A. go to a bar, B. pay to stream it on the internet, or C. pay for DirecTV. The fact that you actually have to pay for a certain service to even get this package should invalidate the entire complaint. You have to pay a premium price just to get the ability to get the service, which you then pay another premium for. So, you're willing to to this, but you want a different offering, so you're going to sue for it. Ridiculous.

On top of that, the NFL owns the rights to all their games. They can market and package that however they want. They also offer it for free on networks, so folks have no gripe there. (Oh, and Scotte, any usage of the word "you" was meant in a general perspective, no personal at you).

Then again, this is coming from California. You can literally sue someone down there for breaking your foot on their door when you try to break into their house. And win.

I have purchased the Sunday ticket for years. I love to record a bunch of games every sunday and watch them throughout the week. If offered a choice, I would choose the whole enchilada.

But I see the legal issue. The advertising simply does not always match the product.

In a way I feel bad for Direct TV if they lose this case, they often use the NFL as a loss leader to get membership, giving the NFL package away so someone will sign up for 2 years. To have those same folks then sign up for a class action feels pretty crappy. Even if the advertising was a bit off, I doubt many of the few who sue were actually tricked into anything.

kearly · Jul 2, 2015

Scottemojo":3lvtk0km said:
Hawks46":3lvtk0km said:

Scottemojo":3lvtk0km said:

The NFL and Direect TV opened themselves up to this with their advertising. They have for years pitched the idea of watching your favorite team no matter where you live. The advertising does not match the product. I don't actually have a problem with them only selling the all or nothing product, but they don't advertise that. They advertise things like a Jets fan in Miami getting to watch the Jets. Not a Jets fan in Miami getting to watch any game that is broadcast.

Click to expand...

Eh, this makes no sense to me. Their advertising says "a Jets fan in Miami can watch the Jets", well they can. They can also watch every other game that's on. You can also DVR other games and watch them later, like divisional games. People are suing because they don't want all the games, just their team. "I don't want all this, I just want MY team. I want it MY way. So i'm gonna sue you". Really ?

I don't see the leg they can stand on, and it's ridiculous that lawyers would even take this case. If you live in market, you get your team on a network. If you live out of market, you get the local regional games. If you don't like it, you can: A. go to a bar, B. pay to stream it on the internet, or C. pay for DirecTV. The fact that you actually have to pay for a certain service to even get this package should invalidate the entire complaint. You have to pay a premium price just to get the ability to get the service, which you then pay another premium for. So, you're willing to to this, but you want a different offering, so you're going to sue for it. Ridiculous.

On top of that, the NFL owns the rights to all their games. They can market and package that however they want. They also offer it for free on networks, so folks have no gripe there. (Oh, and Scotte, any usage of the word "you" was meant in a general perspective, no personal at you).

Then again, this is coming from California. You can literally sue someone down there for breaking your foot on their door when you try to break into their house. And win.

Click to expand...

I have purchased the Sunday ticket for years. I love to record a bunch of games every sunday and watch them throughout the week. If offered a choice, I would choose the whole enchilada.

But I see the legal issue. The advertising simply does not always match the product.

In a way I feel bad for Direct TV if they lose this case, they often use the NFL as a loss leader to get membership, giving the NFL package away so someone will sign up for 2 years. To have those same folks then sign up for a class action feels pretty crappy. Even if the advertising was a bit off, I doubt many of the few who sue were actually tricked into anything.

I don't really get it either. If I lived in Colorado and wanted ONLY Seahawks games, I would understand that it costs the same to get Seahawks games as it would to get all NFL games. It's not as if going ala carte saves any money because the vast amount of cost to the provider simply comes from getting NFL approval. If it wasn't this way, and I could get only Seahawks games for way less money, then I'd understand. But I doubt that's the case. These guys are basically complaining about how the NFL does its business, and blaming the wrong company for it.

kidhawk · Jul 2, 2015

kearly":2yudnd2u said:
Scottemojo":2yudnd2u said:

Hawks46":2yudnd2u said:

Scottemojo":2yudnd2u said:

The NFL and Direect TV opened themselves up to this with their advertising. They have for years pitched the idea of watching your favorite team no matter where you live. The advertising does not match the product. I don't actually have a problem with them only selling the all or nothing product, but they don't advertise that. They advertise things like a Jets fan in Miami getting to watch the Jets. Not a Jets fan in Miami getting to watch any game that is broadcast.

Click to expand...

Eh, this makes no sense to me. Their advertising says "a Jets fan in Miami can watch the Jets", well they can. They can also watch every other game that's on. You can also DVR other games and watch them later, like divisional games. People are suing because they don't want all the games, just their team. "I don't want all this, I just want MY team. I want it MY way. So i'm gonna sue you". Really ?

I don't see the leg they can stand on, and it's ridiculous that lawyers would even take this case. If you live in market, you get your team on a network. If you live out of market, you get the local regional games. If you don't like it, you can: A. go to a bar, B. pay to stream it on the internet, or C. pay for DirecTV. The fact that you actually have to pay for a certain service to even get this package should invalidate the entire complaint. You have to pay a premium price just to get the ability to get the service, which you then pay another premium for. So, you're willing to to this, but you want a different offering, so you're going to sue for it. Ridiculous.

On top of that, the NFL owns the rights to all their games. They can market and package that however they want. They also offer it for free on networks, so folks have no gripe there. (Oh, and Scotte, any usage of the word "you" was meant in a general perspective, no personal at you).

Then again, this is coming from California. You can literally sue someone down there for breaking your foot on their door when you try to break into their house. And win.

Click to expand...

I have purchased the Sunday ticket for years. I love to record a bunch of games every sunday and watch them throughout the week. If offered a choice, I would choose the whole enchilada.

But I see the legal issue. The advertising simply does not always match the product.

In a way I feel bad for Direct TV if they lose this case, they often use the NFL as a loss leader to get membership, giving the NFL package away so someone will sign up for 2 years. To have those same folks then sign up for a class action feels pretty crappy. Even if the advertising was a bit off, I doubt many of the few who sue were actually tricked into anything.

Click to expand...

I don't really get it either. If I lived in Colorado and wanted ONLY Seahawks games, I would understand that it costs the same to get Seahawks games as it would to get all NFL games. It's not as if going ala carte saves any money because the vast amount of cost to the provider simply comes from getting NFL approval. If it wasn't this way, and I could get only Seahawks games for way less money, then I'd understand. But I doubt that's the case. These guys are basically complaining about how the NFL does its business, and blaming the wrong company for it.

To be fair, they are suing the combination of the NFL and DirecTV, so they aren't just laying the blame with DirecTV. I am interested to see if the NFL caves as quickly as the NHL did, but I'm not sure if they will.

Consumer Sues NFL/DirecTV for Individual Team Availability

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Moderator

Active member

New member

Member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Similar threads