https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/20/fubotv-s...nture.html

FuboTV sues Disney, Fox, Warner Bros. over sports joint venture

EDIT: Adding some other links:

https://apnews.com/article/fubo-espn-fox...7263ec342e

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-t...024-02-20/

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/fubo-sue...03138.html

https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/fubo-an...235917500/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/busine...235830781/

https://theathletic.com/5288660/2024/02/...r-lawsuit/

Behind a paywall, so in before the lock.

Anyways, good luck with that, those organizations have more lawyers than an NFL team has assistant coaches.

I seem to recall a lawsuit being predicted in the thread discussing the announcement of the joint venture.

Don't lock yet, this info is also publicly available without a paywall

http://apnews.com/article/fubo-espn-fox-...7263ec342e

Quote:Streaming service FuboTV has filed an antitrust lawsuit against ESPN, Fox, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Hulu, planning to launch a sports-streaming venture in the fall.

The lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of New York. FuboTV, which focuses primarily on live sports, is seeking a jury trial.

The Wall Street Journal was the first to report on the lawsuit.FuboTV says in its filing that it has tried to offer a sports-only streaming service for years but has been prevented from doing so because of ESPN. Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery has imposed bundling requirements on FuboTV which it says forces “Fubo to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to license and broadcast content that its customers do not want or need.”

“Faced with the threat of disruptive competition from Fubo and other upstarts, Defendants have responded by locking arms (and locking others out) to steal Fubo’s core business idea — a sports-centric package of channels — while blocking Fubo from offering that same package,” the company said in its court filing.

The biggest sticking point I'm seeing is that this new service is going to be able to offer ESPN without Disney, Fox without Fox News and TNT/TBS without Cartoon Network.

Comcast, Charter, Fubo etc cannot do this. There is also a possibility of different pricing of channels that the competitors will want to have access to under "favored nation" clauses

They will change the regulations if there are any to be changed. There should be no monopoly issues streaming what is an exclusive sports package. Re-price your content or charge a la carte. Too much demand for live sports and nothing else from the consumer.

(02-21-2024 07:52 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  They will change the regulations if there are any to be changed. There should be no monopoly issues streaming what is an exclusive sports package. Re-price your content or charge a la carte. Too much demand for live sports and nothing else from the consumer.

I don't think it's "regulations" so much as it is contracts.

There's plenty of demand for everything else. Only about 20% watch sports. Everything else is replicable for much cheaper elsewhere, though.

(02-21-2024 07:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  The biggest sticking point I'm seeing is that this new service is going to be able to offer ESPN without Disney, Fox without Fox News and TNT/TBS without Cartoon Network.

Comcast, Charter, Fubo etc cannot do this. There is also a possibility of different pricing of channels that the competitors will want to have access to under "favored nation" clauses

Correct.

The streaming service being offered itself isn’t the issue. Rather, all of the cable carriers have been asking for many years to be able to buy the sports channels alone without having to pay for the other networks that Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. own. That could be looked at as a tying arrangement under antitrust laws: if a seller forces a buyer to buy 10 items to get to the 1 item that’s in demand, then that can drive up prices. Frankly, that is exactly how cable has worked the entire time, except that the cable carriers generally laid low on that argument because the network owners did enforce their most favored nation clauses very strictly. The new Disney/Fox/WBD bundle is creating a product that the cable carriers were outright prohibited from offering since the beginning of the cable industry, so that’s why this is ripe for antitrust litigation.

(02-21-2024 08:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-21-2024 07:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  The biggest sticking point I'm seeing is that this new service is going to be able to offer ESPN without Disney, Fox without Fox News and TNT/TBS without Cartoon Network.

Comcast, Charter, Fubo etc cannot do this. There is also a possibility of different pricing of channels that the competitors will want to have access to under "favored nation" clauses

Correct.

The streaming service being offered itself isn’t the issue. Rather, all of the cable carriers have been asking for many years to be able to buy the sports channels alone without having to pay for the other networks that Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. own. That could be looked at as a tying arrangement under antitrust laws: if a seller forces a buyer to buy 10 items to get to the 1 item that’s in demand, then that can drive up prices. Frankly, that is exactly how cable has worked the entire time, except that the cable carriers generally laid low on that argument because the network owners did enforce their most favored nation clauses very strictly. The new Disney/Fox/WBD bundle is creating a product that the cable carriers were outright prohibited from offering since the beginning of the cable industry, so that’s why this is ripe for antitrust litigation.

The thing is, FUBO TV is not a cable company to my knowledge. So what is the beef here? If Cablevision, Dish or some of the legacy cord extenders filed, then this argument makes sense.

(02-21-2024 07:52 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  They will change the regulations if there are any to be changed. There should be no monopoly issues streaming what is an exclusive sports package. Re-price your content or charge a la carte. Too much demand for live sports and nothing else from the consumer.

They’re not changing the Sherman Antitrust Act, which is what applies here. Not even the most powerful and richest companies in the history of the world - Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. - could get that law changed.

The bolded is why there is a legal issue: Fubo and other cable carriers *can’t* offer that under the contracts that they have with Disney, Fox and WBD. There is no option for Fubo and others to reprice or charge a la carte because Disney, Fox and WBD have all *explicitly* prohibited the cable carriers from ever unbundling the sports networks from the rest of their channels.

So, the Fubo argument (and I think it’s a fair one that probably every cable carrier is going to latch onto) is that Disney/Fox/WBD has forced them to buy a bunch of non-sports channels that they don’t want in order to get sports networks like ESPN. This artificially drives up the price for the Fubo product and, in turn, prices for consumers generally for all cable products. Disney, Fox and WBD then turning around and selling a sports-only skinny bundle (which is exactly how Disney CEO Bob Iger defined it) allows those companies to undercut Fubo and other cable carriers on pricing in the short-term, but then box those cable carriers out in the long-term where the remaining sports bundle service would have effectively unlimited pricing power in the future. That’s exactly what antitrust laws are in place to prevent.

Well, I've never had FUBO and am unaware of what content they explicitly offer. Not sure how this will get settled. Maybe the big media companies have to lease/loan their content at a fair price to smaller providers.

(02-21-2024 08:15 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(02-21-2024 08:06 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-21-2024 07:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  The biggest sticking point I'm seeing is that this new service is going to be able to offer ESPN without Disney, Fox without Fox News and TNT/TBS without Cartoon Network.

Comcast, Charter, Fubo etc cannot do this. There is also a possibility of different pricing of channels that the competitors will want to have access to under "favored nation" clauses

Correct.

The streaming service being offered itself isn’t the issue. Rather, all of the cable carriers have been asking for many years to be able to buy the sports channels alone without having to pay for the other networks that Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. own. That could be looked at as a tying arrangement under antitrust laws: if a seller forces a buyer to buy 10 items to get to the 1 item that’s in demand, then that can drive up prices. Frankly, that is exactly how cable has worked the entire time, except that the cable carriers generally laid low on that argument because the network owners did enforce their most favored nation clauses very strictly. The new Disney/Fox/WBD bundle is creating a product that the cable carriers were outright prohibited from offering since the beginning of the cable industry, so that’s why this is ripe for antitrust litigation.

The thing is, FUBO TV is not a cable company to my knowledge. So what is the beef here? If Cablevision, Dish or some of the legacy cord extenders filed, then this argument makes sense.

That’s pedantic. Fubo is a bundler of cable channels that delivers them via streaming as opposed to a cable box. By your definition, Dish and DirecTV aren’t “cable companies”, either, simply because the technology that they use to deliver channels is different than cable. (Satellite is honestly even a bigger difference since streaming generally requires high speed Internet that is most often delivered via cable companies.) What matters that they all have the same types of contracts with the cable networks that contain the same restrictions and most favored nation clauses as the cable carriers.

(02-21-2024 08:15 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  The thing is, FUBO TV is not a cable company to my knowledge. So what is the beef here? If Cablevision, Dish or some of the legacy cord extenders filed, then this argument makes sense.

They're an MVPD, just like a cable company--a content aggregator. The contract they have with Disney likely looks very much like the one Disney has with Comcast, etc.

(02-21-2024 08:25 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Well, I've never had FUBO and am unaware of what content they explicitly offer. Not sure how this will get settled. Maybe the big media companies have to lease/loan their content at a fair price to smaller providers.

Fubo is offering what anyone would think of as cable, only via streaming. Hulu Live TV Plus, YouTubeTV, Sling and DirecTVStream are all similar streaming offerings of cable packages.

(02-21-2024 08:27 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-21-2024 08:25 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Well, I've never had FUBO and am unaware of what content they explicitly offer. Not sure how this will get settled. Maybe the big media companies have to lease/loan their content at a fair price to smaller providers.

Fubo is offering what anyone would think of as cable, only via streaming. Hulu Live TV Plus, YouTubeTV, Sling and DirecTVStream are all similar streaming offerings of cable packages.

I think the solution is to license/sub-license the high-demand sports rights to these other streamers/providers at a lower price on a first come first served basis.

Then offer your live sports venture as a more longer term contract where the price works itself out for consumer over 6 months or 1 year, or month to month. But yeah, aside from this, the sports venture is DOA.

(02-21-2024 08:26 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(02-21-2024 08:15 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  The thing is, FUBO TV is not a cable company to my knowledge. So what is the beef here? If Cablevision, Dish or some of the legacy cord extenders filed, then this argument makes sense.

They're an MVPD, just like a cable company--a content aggregator. The contract they have with Disney likely looks very much like the one Disney has with Comcast, etc.

Technically they are a vMVPD.

(02-21-2024 08:31 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(02-21-2024 08:27 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-21-2024 08:25 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Well, I've never had FUBO and am unaware of what content they explicitly offer. Not sure how this will get settled. Maybe the big media companies have to lease/loan their content at a fair price to smaller providers.

Fubo is offering what anyone would think of as cable, only via streaming. Hulu Live TV Plus, YouTubeTV, Sling and DirecTVStream are all similar streaming offerings of cable packages.

I think the solution is to license/sub-license the high-demand sports rights to these other streamers/providers at a lower price on a first come first served basis.

Then offer your live sports venture as a more longer term contract where the price works itself out for consumer over 6 months or 1 year, or month to month. But yeah, aside from this, the sports venture is DOA.

It's possible that the Disney, Fox and WBD executives are acting in a blind panic and making obvious mistakes.

Or maybe they know what they're doing, are aware of what their contracts with the providers say, and they have a plan.

I think it's the second.

My guess is that when they decided to do the Joint Venture, at the same time and based on the same numbers and projections and everything, they decided that it was time to abandon the bundle.

The JV means you can get ESPN (and the ride-along channels) without getting Fox News, CNN, Disney Channel, Nickeolodeon, MTV and the rest. Fox and FS1 without Fox NEws, TNT and TBS without CNN, ESPN without Disney.

That's something that the current contracts forbid the cable companies and MVPD's from doing. Because up until now, Disney especially but also Fox and WBD was based upon the bundle -- you can't drop DisneyJR or ESPN2 without dropping ESPN, you can't carry Fox NEws Channel in NYC without taking BTN and FS1 (and YES, which was Fox Sports part owned for a while).

Now apparently you can with the JV.

I expect that Disney and the ride-alongs will renegotiate with the MVPDs to allow this sort of unbundling. I don't see how they can avoid it.

(02-21-2024 08:51 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-21-2024 08:31 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(02-21-2024 08:27 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-21-2024 08:25 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Well, I've never had FUBO and am unaware of what content they explicitly offer. Not sure how this will get settled. Maybe the big media companies have to lease/loan their content at a fair price to smaller providers.

Fubo is offering what anyone would think of as cable, only via streaming. Hulu Live TV Plus, YouTubeTV, Sling and DirecTVStream are all similar streaming offerings of cable packages.

I think the solution is to license/sub-license the high-demand sports rights to these other streamers/providers at a lower price on a first come first served basis.

Then offer your live sports venture as a more longer term contract where the price works itself out for consumer over 6 months or 1 year, or month to month. But yeah, aside from this, the sports venture is DOA.

It's possible that the Disney, Fox and WBD executives are acting in a blind panic and making obvious mistakes.

Or maybe they know what they're doing, are aware of what their contracts with the providers say, and they have a plan.

I think it's the second.

My guess is that when they decided to do the Joint Venture, at the same time and based on the same numbers and projections and everything, they decided that it was time to abandon the bundle.

The JV means you can get ESPN (and the ride-along channels) without getting Fox News, CNN, Disney Channel, Nickeolodeon, MTV and the rest. Fox and FS1 without Fox NEws, TNT and TBS without CNN, ESPN without Disney.

That's something that the current contracts forbid the cable companies and MVPD's from doing. Because up until now, Disney especially but also Fox and WBD was based upon the bundle -- you can't drop DisneyJR or ESPN2 without dropping ESPN, you can't carry Fox NEws Channel in NYC without taking BTN and FS1 (and YES, which was Fox Sports part owned for a while).

Now apparently you can with the JV.

I expect that Disney and the ride-alongs will renegotiate with the MVPDs to allow this sort of unbundling. I don't see how they can avoid it.

I agree that it's most likely the second one. It will be hard for Fubo to claim antitrust when consumers will benefit from paying a lower price than they currently do.

I had formulated my own opinion but this cemented it: http://amp.awfulannouncing.com/streaming...itive.html

Its a win for consumers, because for the first time the content creators (WBD, Disney, FOX) are allowing their sports content to be unbundled. The problem is they arent, to our knowledge at this point, allowing the competitors of the JV to unbundle and offer a competing product

I believe the channel owners have gotten away with requiring bundling until now because they have enforced it across the board. By limiting the availability new sports only slim bundle to an affiliated entity, they have crossed the line. Fubo is quite right to demand to have these channels made available on an equivalent basis.