MLB TV settlement

[owbc]

This is where the current rules are broken. I don't have any sympathy for someone who is truly in market and complains about not getting Brewer games when they choose to stream their content online and not get cable or DirecTV. You made your bed...

 

But for people in Iowa to be considered "in market" for Milwaukee is completely stupid. There are many examples of this stupidity.

 

Baseball on its way to becoming the only programming that isn't easily available to stream online. Since I got 100 mbps Internet, I can stream just about anything in HD with no lag or buffering, ever. I can watch 4 games at once on my laptop. There's no reason for me to ever subscribe to cable/satellite again. Myself and many, many others have been streaming in-market baseball games for years. I've done it for the last 5 MLB seasons so this is nothing new. It's easy to set up a VPN or find another source. I'm not complaining, I'm just waiting for MLB to catch up to the inevitable.

[1992casey]

From a consumer standpoint, cable is a poor investment. You pay for a pile of channels you don't watch. Equipment rental is high, which is ironic in an age when TVs are better and cheaper than ever before. And equipment is poor. Time Warner has been offering the same oversized and ugly cable boxes for more than a decade. The software is slow. You hit a button on the remote, and nothing happens. You hit the button again, and two things happen. That's provided that you hit the right button to begin with on a remote with over sixty buttons. A couple of years ago, I helped a friend hook up Charter boxes. They didn't even have HDMI capability.

 

In contrast, nice little modern boxes that work as expected can be purchased inexpensively from Apple, Roku, and Amazon. They allow for a lot of consumer choice. The only issue is that a lot of programming, such as sports, is restricted to antiquated and expensive cable services.

[502 to Right]

This is where the current rules are broken. I don't have any sympathy for someone who is truly in market and complains about not getting Brewer games when they choose to stream their content online and not get cable or DirecTV. You made your bed...

 

But for people in Iowa to be considered "in market" for Milwaukee is completely stupid. There are many examples of this stupidity.

 

Baseball on its way to becoming the only programming that isn't easily available to stream online. Since I got 100 mbps Internet, I can stream just about anything in HD with no lag or buffering, ever. I can watch 4 games at once on my laptop. There's no reason for me to ever subscribe to cable/satellite again. Myself and many, many others have been streaming in-market baseball games for years. I've done it for the last 5 MLB seasons so this is nothing new. It's easy to set up a VPN or find another source. I'm not complaining, I'm just waiting for MLB to catch up to the inevitable.

 

Baseball is a unique sport with respect to its market. So I don't see things changing too soon.

 

But I have no doubt that (edit--people) will find a way to steal that which they cannot buy (at their price anyway). They've done their part to destroy the music industry and now they're setting their sites on the sports world.

[logan82]

Hopefully baseball will realize that you can make money if you offer a product. HBO finally realized people want to pay for things if they can. Those that don't want to pay will not pay either way.

[1992casey]

I don't think people are trying to circumvent paying. Rather, they're looking to be able to choose whom to pay. They're seeing that cable and satellite aren't good values.

 

Cord-cutters could easily end up paying more than they would for a cable subscription. But they'd be getting exactly what they want, and with services like Netflix and Hulu as part of the picture, they'd be getting programming that cable and satellite don't offer.

 

The biggie for me is that I'd like to have several TVs around the house. Equipping each one with a cable box is way too expensive. And paying $90 per month for programming I never use in order to get the few channels I want to watch just seems dumb, especially when that doesn't even pay for the equipment to watch that programming.

[jjgott]

HBO finally realized people want to pay for things if they can. Those that don't want to pay will not pay either way.

 

I dunno, everyone I know still uses their parent's HBO log-in to gain access instead of paying for HBO Now.

[owbc]

Baseball is a unique sport with respect to its market. So I don't see things changing too soon.

 

But I have no doubt that millennials will find a way to steal that which they cannot buy (at their price anyway). They've done their part to destroy the music industry and now they're setting their sites on the sports world.

 

Oh yeah, the music industry that tried to sue their customers rather than admit the inevitable. At least MLB is smart enough to avoid calling people thieves just for wanting to watch their content. Funny how nobody steals music anymore now that it's available for a fair price. And the number and quality of artists/genres is better than ever.

[craigharmann]

I don't think people are trying to circumvent paying. Rather, they're looking to be able to choose whom to pay. They're seeing that cable and satellite aren't good values.

 

Cord-cutters could easily end up paying more than they would for a cable subscription. But they'd be getting exactly what they want, and with services like Netflix and Hulu as part of the picture, they'd be getting programming that cable and satellite don't offer.

 

The biggie for me is that I'd like to have several TVs around the house. Equipping each one with a cable box is way too expensive. And paying $90 per month for programming I never use in order to get the few channels I want to watch just seems dumb, especially when that doesn't even pay for the equipment to watch that programming.

 

This. I'm looking for value. Paying $70 a month for 350 channels, where I maybe watch 20 of them, doesn't strike me as a value. Paying for Hulu, Netflix and Amazon Prime, I can watch what I want when I want. That's a value to me. As for sports, I haven't watched as much since I've cut the cord, because I don't have access. It's not the end of the world, but if I had the opportunity to buy it at a good value, I would.

[statman0007]

My dream is that Fox eventually makes a deal with Dish/Sling TV. If I could add FSW and Big Ten Network to a Sling TV subscription I would do it in an instant. Their offerings combined with an over the air receiver would give virtually all the major channels.

[danzig6767]

Ok, I know MLB wants to make sure all the regional sports offer a similar product before they allow in market fans to purchase streaming options of their teams. To me the problem is that when you stream games out of market now, they don't show the commercials. Regional sports channels pay a lot of money to broadcast a team's games. They get that money back by getting advertising, and a lot of that is local. Wouldn't MLB solve the problem if they just showed the commercials? Then came up with a payment option that gave the needed amount to the regional sports channel and kept what they needed?

The one issue i wonder about when it comes to commercials and people with cable is DVR's.

 

I have U-Verse for cable so i can get my fix of all different kinds of sports which mainly are on cable. That said, i DVR the vast majority of things i watch and so do my friends with cable. This also includes sports pretty often.

 

I'm so used to not watching commercials since i have a DVR, it gets on my nerves on the rare occasions i watch something live and thus can't fast forward past all commercials. So now i'm to to point if say a Packers, Brewers, Bucks, Wisconsin, etc game is on, i just record it and watch something else on my DVR for about an hour. Then i can fast forward past every commercial and halftime if it's basketball or football, without spending much extra time watching the game.

 

Among all of the technology today, it's hard for me to imagine life without a DVR so i can watch whatever i want, whenever i want to, and even so i can pause a show/game for whatever reason at the time. Multiple friends of mine do the same thing. In fact, on the rare occasions i actually watch something live, often i'll find myself grabbing the remote to fast forward when a commercial comes on, but then have to say to myself damn this sucks, can't fast forward.

[RobDeer 45]

I think sports is the one exception, where big advertising dollars are still spent on commercial breaks because most people still watch sports live. I DVR everything else, but I have a hard time doing it with sports because I like to be in the moment. I get what you are saying though, that's why advertisers are doing everything they can to add product drops in shows or intros. Same with sporting events. Every replay, double play, home run etc is brought to you by..... My point was just saying that the reason they don't allow in market streaming right now is a combo of cable companies paying so much for tv rights and them being able to recoup that money by advertisement dollars and subscriptions. If they still show the commercials for in market streamers, and maybe charge them a bit more, I think it solves most of the problem that MLB is saying they have (if they still use the MLB streaming app with commercials in and a different subscription price for in market vs out of market).

[Patrick425]

Baseball is a unique sport with respect to its market. So I don't see things changing too soon.

 

But I have no doubt that millennials will find a way to steal that which they cannot buy (at their price anyway). They've done their part to destroy the music industry and now they're setting their sites on the sports world.

 

Oh yeah, the music industry that tried to sue their customers rather than admit the inevitable. At least MLB is smart enough to avoid calling people thieves just for wanting to watch their content. Funny how nobody steals music anymore now that it's available for a fair price. And the number and quality of artists/genres is better than ever.

 

No one steals music any more because they started cracking down and handing out severe penalties. Fair price or not, if people thought they could get away with getting something for free they would.

 

I'm with "502 to Right". ...but hard for me to express my opinion about this without delving into politics.

[Outlander]

My dream is that Fox eventually makes a deal with Dish/Sling TV. If I could add FSW and Big Ten Network to a Sling TV subscription I would do it in an instant. Their offerings combined with an over the air receiver would give virtually all the major channels.

I was thinking of that too but wondering how they would pull it off. They would somehow have to make sure that wherever you are streaming from gets the correct Fox Sports and I'm not sure how easy that would be.

[lcbj68c]

Got this email today, as many of you that are subscribers to MLB.tv and live outside the Milwaukee area probably did as well.

 

Long story short, consumers have been engaged in a class action suit against cable companies getting in bed with sports organizations and not offering ala carte options with regards to their sports packages.

 

The results are now the MLB through atleast Comcast and Directv (whom I have), will be forced to offer a package for sale that includes only Brewers (or your desired team), rather than being forced to buy an entire package of 12 games you don't care about on a given night, for an entire season.

 

It's only a matter of time before the NFL is forced to do the same thing with Sunday Ticket offerings...for that day..I am waiting to pop the champagne.

 

Full email:

 

 

MLB.TV Class Action Settlement Notice

MLB.com Subscriptions

Wed 2/10/2016 9:15 PM

Newsletters

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NOTICE TO PERSONS WHO PURCHASED MLB EXTRA INNINGS FROM COMCAST OR DIRECTV OR PURCHASED MLB.TV

You Have an Opportunity to Subscribe to Discounted Individual Team Packages through MLB.TV and Other New Online Products

A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

 

A proposed settlement (the "Settlement") has been reached in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of consumers who purchased MLB.TV or purchased MLB Extra Innings from Comcast or DIRECTV between May 9, 2008, and January 18, 2016. The proposed settlement is between the individuals who brought that lawsuit and the defendants. The defendants are the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball ("MLB"), Major League Baseball Properties Inc., as successor by merger to Major League Baseball Enterprises Inc., MLB Advanced Media L.P., MLB Advanced Media, Inc., Athletics Investment Group, LLC, the Baseball Club of Seattle, L.L.L.P., Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC, Chicago White Sox, Ltd., Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd., The Phillies, Pittsburgh Baseball, Inc., San Francisco Baseball Associates, LLC, New York Yankees Partnership, Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC, Comcast Corporation, Comcast SportsNet California, LLC, Comcast SportsNet Chicago, LLC, Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia, L.P., DIRECTV, LLC, DIRECTV Sports Networks, LLC, DIRECTV Sports Net Pittsburgh, LLC (d/b/a Root Sports Pittsburgh), DIRECTV Sports Net Rocky Mountain, LLC (d/b/a Root Sports Rocky Mountain), and DIRECTV Sports Net Northwest, LLC (d/b/a Root Sports Northwest). The lawsuit alleges that MLB's rules establishing local broadcast territories violated federal antitrust laws. The defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability. If you purchased MLB Extra Innings from Comcast or DIRECTV or purchased MLB.TV between May 9, 2008 and January 18, 2016, your legal rights are affected whether you act or do not act. Please read this notice carefully.

 

The lawsuit alleges that the territorial allocation of broadcast rights within MLB assigned to each of its member clubs and thereafter sold to regional sports networks violated federal antitrust laws, provides out-of-market consumers with fewer choices, and inflates prices charged to view broadcasts of live professional baseball games. Defendants dispute Plaintiffs' factual and legal claims and deny any wrongdoing and liability, as well as any adverse effect on consumer choices and that prices charged have been inflated. The parties have concluded that it is in their best interests to settle the litigation to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and uncertainty of litigation.

 

In May 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court held that the individuals who filed this suit could represent a class for the purposes of seeking injunctive relief, but not damages.

 

Under the Settlement and subject to MLB's continued delineation of its clubs' local broadcast territorial rights and associated blackout practices, MLB has agreed to reduce prices through the 2020 season and provide several new products. Comcast and DIRECTV have also agreed to reduce prices for the 2016 and 2017 seasons.

 

Price Relief

 

MLB will lower the price of MLB.TV to $109.99 for 2016 (from the 2015 price of $129.99). MLB will be prohibited from increasing the price by more than 3% (or the federal Cost of Living Adjustment ("COLA"), if higher) per year through 2020.

 

For the 2016 and 2017 MLB seasons, Comcast and DIRECTV will provide the full season MLB Extra Innings product at a 12.5% discount from the 2015 price.

 

Increased Availability

 

Single-Team Packages: MLB will offer packages of single teams' out-of-market games through MLB.TV (for example, a stream of just the Kansas City Royals' games for out-of-market subscribers). This product will cost $84.99 for a full season in 2016, with MLB allowed to raise the price by no more than 3% (or COLA, if higher) for each of the next four years. MLB has also agreed to make this option available to Comcast and DIRECTV so that they may offer seasonal packages of single team games for each and every MLB Club available through MLB Extra Innings, although Comcast and DIRECTV are not obligated to offer such packages.

 

Follow Your Team: MLB will allow all MLB.TV purchasers who subscribe to Comcast, DIRECTV, or certain other cable, satellite or other providers to purchase a "Follow Your Team" option that will allow them to receive telecasts of their favorite out-of-market team's broadcaster without any blackouts-even when it is playing an in-market team, so long as the purchaser receives the in-market team's programming through his or her television service. This product will cost no more than $10 more than a standard MLB.TV package, which will raise the overall price of the MLB.TV package to $119.99 for a full season in 2016 for consumers selecting this enhancement.

 

In-Market Streaming: MLB will seek to reach agreements with Comcast, Root Sports, and Fox regional sports networks to offer live in-market streaming of their telecasts. If in-market streaming is not available for all of the teams whose games are broadcast by those networks by 2017, MLB will be prohibited from increasing prices for any of the above MLB.TV products through 2020.

 

Unserved Fans: MLB will offer live streaming of any in-market team's telecasts produced by Comcast, Root Sports, or Fox regional sports networks to any customer who is unable to obtain multi-channel video provider distributor service or virtual multi-channel video provider distributor service at his or her residence.

 

The Court in charge of this case still needs to decide whether or not to approve the Settlement. If the Court approves the Settlement, and after any appeals are resolved, the benefits will be provided automatically to class members.

 

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

Automatic Benefits You do NOT need to submit a claim form to obtain these benefits. They will be provided automatically.

Exclude Yourself by April 15 You may exclude yourself from the Settlement in the case and retain your rights to commence a lawsuit against Defendants for damages caused by the conduct challenged in this case. Because the Court certified an injunctive class only and Defendants have agreed to change the ways in which the packages are sold to all consumers as part of this Settlement, you cannot opt out of the injunctive claims.

Object by April 15 Submit a written statement to the Court about why you don't like the Settlement. If you submit an objection, you may also ask to be heard by the Court at the final Fairness Hearing.

Go to Fairness Hearing You may attend the fairness hearing on April 25, 2016, whether or not you object or intend to speak.

Do Nothing You will receive the full benefits of the Settlement, and will give up your rights to initiate any lawsuit against Defendants regarding the MLB's territorial broadcast limitations on its clubs and related blackout practices, including a lawsuit for alternative or additional relief to that provided here.

**These rights and options - and the deadlines to exercise them - are explained in this notice. **

 

WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS

BASIC INFORMATION

 

Why is this Notice being provided?

What is this lawsuit about?

Why is this a Class Action?

Why is there a settlement?

 

WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT

 

How do I know if I am part of the Settlement?

Are there exceptions to being included in the Settlement?

 

THE SETTLEMENT - WHAT YOU GET AND GIVE UP IF YOU QUALIFY

 

What does the Settlement provide?

What do I give up if the Settlement is given final approval?

 

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE DAMAGES RELEASE

 

If I do not exclude myself, can I sue later?

How do I exclude myself from the damages release?

How can I tell the Court that I object to the Settlement?

What happens if I object and the Settlement is approved?

What is the difference between objecting and asking to be excluded?

 

THE LAWYERS WHO REPRESENT YOU

 

Do I have a lawyer in the case?

How will the lawyers in the case be paid?

 

THE COURT'S FAIRNESS HEARING

 

How will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlement?

When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlement?

Do I need to come to the hearing?

May I speak at the hearing?

 

OTHER INFORMATION

 

How do I get more information?

 

BASIC INFORMATION

 

Why is this Notice being provided?

 

Judge Shira Scheindlin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York authorized this notice to inform you about a proposed Settlement of this class action lawsuit and about all of your rights and options before the Court decides whether to approve the Settlement. This notice explains the lawsuit, the Settlement, and your legal rights. The case is known as Garber v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Case No. 12-cv-3704, which was filed in 2012. The people who sue are called "Plaintiffs." The companies being sued are collectively called the "Defendants."

This notice summarizes the Settlement, but you can view the complete Settlement Agreement at http://www.MLBBroadcastingSettlement.com.

 

What is this lawsuit about?

 

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated federal law by agreeing to allocate the country into territories and prohibit any MLB team from distributing broadcasts outside its specified territory. Plaintiffs claim that this caused inflated prices for live baseball broadcasts and limited consumer options for viewing baseball broadcasts. Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations, deny any wrongdoing, and contend that the challenged rules increased the quality and availability of MLB programming, and increased consumer choice at reasonable prices, as well as providing other benefits.

 

Why is this a Class Action?

 

In a class action, one or more people sue on behalf of other people who have similar claims. If allowed by a court, all of these other people become part of a "class" or "Class Members." One lawsuit resolves the claims of all Class Members, except for any who exclude themselves from the class. In this case, the Court held that the individuals who filed this suit could represent a class for the purposes of seeking practice changes and a declaration that Defendants' conduct is illegal, but could not pursue damages claims on behalf of the class.

 

Why is there a Settlement?

 

The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs or Defendants. Instead, both sides agreed to settle this case to avoid the burden, cost and risk of further litigation. The Settlement does not mean that any law was broken or that Defendants did anything wrong. By settling, Defendants are not admitting any wrongdoing or liability. Defendants continue to deny all factual and legal claims in this case. Plaintiffs and their lawyers think the Settlement is best for all Class Members.

 

WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT

 

How do I know if I am part of the Settlement?

 

The Settlement includes all purchasers of MLB.TV and individuals who purchased MLB Extra Innings through either Comcast or DIRECTV between May 9, 2008 and January 18, 2016. The class is defined as follows:

All individuals in the United States who purchased television service from DIRECTV and/or Comcast, or their subsidiaries, which included MLB Extra Innings, and/or who purchased MLB.TV from Major League Baseball or its subsidiaries or affiliates.

 

Are there exceptions to being included in the Settlement?

 

Yes. The following are not included in the Settlement:

 

Officers, directors, or employees of any of the Defendants or any entity in which any of the Defendants have a controlling interest, and the affiliates, legal representatives, attorneys, heirs, or assigns of any of the Defendants; and

Judge Shira Scheindlin and members of her judicial staff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and members of their immediate families.

 

 

 

THE SETTLEMENT - WHAT YOU GET AND GIVE UP IF YOU QUALIFY

 

What does the Settlement provide?

 

Price Relief

MLB will lower the price of MLB.TV to $109.99 for 2016 (from the 2015 price of $129.99). MLB will be prohibited from increasing the price by more than 3% (or the federal COLA, if higher) per year through 2020.

For the 2016 and 2017 MLB seasons, Comcast and DIRECTV will provide the full season MLB Extra Innings product at a 12.5% discount from the 2015 price.

Increased Availability

Single-Team Packages: MLB will offer packages of single teams' out-of-market games through MLB.TV (for example, a stream of just the Kansas City Royals' games for out-of-market subscribers). This product will cost $84.99 for a full season in 2016, with MLB allowed to raise the price by no more than 3% (or COLA, if higher) for each of the next four years. MLB has also agreed to make this option available to Comcast and DIRECTV so that they may offer unbundled seasonal packages of single team games for each and every MLB Club available through MLB Extra Innings, although Comcast and DIRECTV are not obligated to offer such packages.

Follow Your Team: MLB will allow all MLB.TV purchasers who subscribe to Comcast, DIRECTV, or certain other cable, satellite or other providers to purchase a "Follow Your Team" option that will allow them to receive telecasts of their favorite out-of-market team's broadcaster without any blackouts-even when it is playing an in-market team, so long as the purchaser receives the in-market team's programming through his or her television service. This product will cost no more than $10 more than a standard MLB.TV package, which will raise the overall price of the MLB.TV package to $119.99 for a full season in 2016 for consumers selecting this enhancement.

In-Market Streaming: MLB will seek to reach agreements with Comcast, Root Sports, and Fox regional sports networks to offer in-market streaming of their live baseball telecasts. If in-market streaming is not available for all of the teams whose games are broadcast by those networks by 2017, MLB will be prohibited from increasing prices for any of the above MLB.TV products through 2020.

Unserved Fans: MLB will offer live streaming of any in-market team's telecasts produced by Comcast, Root Sports, or Fox regional sports networks to any customer who is unable to obtain multi-channel video provider distributor service or virtual multi-channel video provider distributor service at his or her residence.

 

What do I give up if the Settlement is given Final Approval?

 

If the Settlement is given Final Approval, you and all other Class Members will release certain claims defined in the Settlement as "Released Claims." In general terms, Class Members who do not validly request to be excluded from the Settlement will release all Defendants from any claims that have been or could have been asserted based upon the facts alleged in the complaint, including claims for money damages. In addition, for the next five years you will release any claims based on the conduct permitted by the Settlement. If the Settlement is given Final Approval, the claims that were asserted against Defendants in the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice.

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE DAMAGES RELEASE

If you want to keep any right to seek monetary damages from Defendants for the dispute in this case, then you must take steps to exclude yourself from that portion of the Settlement. Because Defendants have agreed to change the ways in which the packages are sold to all consumers, excluding yourself only would allow you to pursue monetary claims. You will not be able to pursue additional injunctive relief.

 

If I do not exclude myself, can I sue later?

 

No. Unless you exclude yourself from the damages release, you give up the right to sue Defendants for any claims that this Settlement resolves.

 

How do I exclude myself from the damages release?

 

To exclude yourself from the damages release, you must either do so by following the instructions at the Settlement website, http://www.MLBBroadcastingSettlement.com, or by sending a letter by mail clearly stating that you want to be excluded from the Settlement in Garber v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Case No. 12-cv-3704. Include your name, address, telephone number, signature, and date, and mail your request for exclusion to:

Garber v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

c/o Heffler Claims Group

Po Box 58339

Philadelphia, PA 19102-8339

All requests must be completed or postmarked by April 15, 2016.

If you do not follow these procedures, you will lose any opportunity to exclude yourself from the Settlement for all claims, including claims for past damages.

 

How can I tell the Court that I object to the Settlement?

 

You can object to the Settlement if you do not like some part or all of it. You must give reasons why you think the Court should not approve the Settlement. You may also object to Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and service awards to the named Plaintiffs. To object, you must file your objection with the Court no later than April 15, 2016, and mail your objection to these five addresses postmarked no later than April 15, 2016.

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS

Edward Diver

Howard I. Langer

Peter Leckman

LANGER, GROGAN & DIVER, P.C.

1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130

Philadelphia, PA 19103 Daniel J. Toal

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP

1285 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10019

Arthur J. Burke

David B. Toscano

DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP

450 Lexington Avenue

New York, NY 10017

John Schmidtlein

William Vigen

Joelle Perry

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP

725 Twelfth Street NW

Washington, DC 20005

Melissa D. Ingalls

Tammy A. Tsoumas

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

333 South Hope Street

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Jonathan D. Schiller

Alan B. Vickery

Christopher E. Duffy

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

575 Lexington Avenue

New York, NY 10022

 

What happens if I object and the Settlement is approved?

 

If the Settlement is finally approved, you will remain a Class Member regardless of whether you objected. You will remain bound by the terms of the Settlement and will not be able to sue Defendants about the claims in this case.

 

What is the difference between objecting and asking to be excluded?

 

Objecting is simply telling the Court that you do not like something about the Settlement. You can object only if you stay in the relevant part of the Settlement. Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you do not want to be part of that aspect of the Settlement. If you exclude yourself for purposes of pursuing past damages claims, you cannot object to the release of damages claims, because that aspect of the Settlement no longer affects you. You may object to the provisions providing for changes in the Defendants' practices whether or not you exclude yourself from the settlement.

THE LAWYERS WHO REPRESENT YOU

 

Do I have a lawyer in this case?

 

The Court appointed Langer Grogan & Diver, P.C. to represent the class. This firm, together with other law firms that have assisted them, are called "Plaintiffs' Counsel." You will not be charged for these lawyers, because their fees will be paid separately by Defendants if the Court approves the fees. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer in this case, you may hire one at your own expense.

 

How will the lawyers in the case be paid?

 

Plaintiffs' Counsel will ask the Court to award attorneys' fees and reimbursement of the expenses they had in this case. Plaintiffs' Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses will be filed with the Court by April 11, 2016, and posted on the Settlement website. Plaintiffs' Counsel will request $16,500,000 in fees and costs, which is based on the hourly fees they have incurred over the last 4 years, the litigation expenses they have incurred over this time and Plaintiffs' Counsel's estimate of the value conferred on the class.

Plaintiffs' Counsel will also ask for service awards of up to $10,000 for each named Plaintiff for their services on behalf of the class. The named Plaintiffs worked with Plaintiffs' Counsel to litigate this case, including producing documents, being deposed by Defendants, and preparing for trial.

All fees, costs, and service awards are entirely in the discretion of the District Court. Any fees, costs, and service awards that the Court awards will be paid by Defendants.

THE COURT'S FAIRNESS HEARING

 

How will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlement?

 

At the Fairness Hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court will also consider Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses and service awards for the named Plaintiffs. If there are objections, the Court will consider them. If you do not file a written objection, you will not be permitted to speak at the Fairness Hearing. After the Fairness Hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement and how much to award for fees, expenses and service awards.

 

When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlement?

 

The Court will hold the Fairness Hearing on April 25, 2016, at 2:30PM, at the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007-1312. A motion for final approval of the Settlement will be filed by Plaintiffs' Counsel by April 11, 2016. The motion will also be posted on the Settlement website, http://www.MLBBroadcastingSettlement.com.

The Fairness Hearing may be moved to a different date or time without additional notice, so it is recommended that you periodically check http://www.MLBBroadcastingSettlement.com for updated information. Members of the Class who support the Settlement do not need to appear at the hearing or take any other action to indicate their approval of the Settlement. Members of the Class who object to the Settlement are not required to attend the Fairness Hearing.

 

Do I need to come to the hearing?

 

No. Plaintiffs' Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have. However, you are welcome to attend the hearing at your own expense. If you send in a written objection, you do not have to come to the Fairness Hearing to talk about it. As long as you mailed your written objection on time, the Court will consider it. You also may pay your own lawyer to attend the Fairness Hearing, but his or her attendance is not necessary.

 

May I speak at the hearing?

 

You may speak at the Fairness Hearing if you submitted an objection as described in the answer to Question 11 and stated in your objection that you wish to be heard at the Fairness Hearing. You must file your objection by April 15, 2016 or you will not be heard. If you choose to appear in person at the Fairness Hearing, you can appear yourself or by retaining an attorney at your own expense to appear on your behalf. If the attorney is appearing on behalf of more than one Class Member, he or she must identify each of those Class Members.

OTHER INFORMATION

 

How do I get more information?

 

This notice summarizes the Settlement. More details are in the Settlement Agreement available at http://www.MLBBroadcastingSettlement.com. If you still have questions, call the Settlement Administrator at 1-877-852-8871, contact them via the settlement website, or write to Garber v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball; c/o Heffler Claims Group; Po Box 58339; Philadelphia, PA 19102-8339.

Please do not contact Defendants, their counsel, the Court or the Clerk's office.

© 2016 MLB Advanced Media, L.P. All Major League Baseball trademarks, service marks and copyrights used herein are the property of the applicable MLB entity. All rights reserved. Any other marks used herein are trademarks of their respective owners.

 

Please review MLB.TV's privacy policy.

 

You received this service-related message in connection with your MLB.TV subscription. E-mail is MLB.TV's primary mode of communication for subscription-related communications and updates.

 

Postal Address: MLB.TV, c/o MLB Advanced Media, L.P., 75 Ninth Avenue, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10011.

Getting too much email from MLB.com Subscriptions? You can unsubscribe

[jerichoholicninja]

There's already a thread about this in the MLB forum. And your in market team is still unavailable so this really changes nothing.

[lcbj68c]

In Salt Lake City, I don't have an in-market team (I believe I have 3 at times, sometimes 4?). This changes everything with respect to the industry and how it views the marketplace. It is only a matter of time before this is enhanced into a la carte selections be required for sports programming. Being able to buy just Brewers games for $84.99 for MLB.tv instead of spending $219 for Extra Innings changes everything for me.

[torts]

question, does the MLB.TV deal also get you the radio broadcasts through the At Bat app?

[Ennder]

Hmm. I would consider doing this if they were fielding a team worth watching this season. Maybe I'll go for it next year when the talent starts to come up.

[1992casey]

Being able to buy just Brewers games for $84.99 for MLB.tv instead of spending $219 for Extra Innings changes everything for me.

 

I think the more apt comparison is either $85 vs. $110 (the cost of the full MLB.TV package). Or maybe the $85 should be compared to last year's MLB.TV cost, which was more than $110 but a lot less than $219.

 

For the extra $25, I think I'd buy 30 teams rather than just one. However, as we've mentioned a lot over the years, places like Salt Lake City are still problematic because of more than one home team being blacked out. Viewers are still going to have to manage to get those "extra" home teams into their cable plans (at the extra cost of a sports package through the cable company) to be able to see all 30 teams.

[JackNicholson1974]

So long as there are in-market blackouts it is pointless. Here, watch all the teams you dont care about for $200 a year!

[jerichoholicninja]

So long as there are in-market blackouts it is pointless. Here, watch all the teams you dont care about for $200 a year!

 

Agree. It's a slight win for people who want to watch one out of market team exclusively, but overall big whoop.

[torts]

So long as there are in-market blackouts it is pointless. Here, watch all the teams you dont care about for $200 a year!

 

Agree. It's a slight win for people who want to watch one out of market team exclusively, but overall big whoop.

 

Like me!

[1992casey]

It's not completely pointless. Cable subscribers can watch games on their iPhones when they're out to dinner with their spouses. But chances are that the establishment is showing the game on TV anyway.

 

Slightly more useful would be to visit a cord-cutter's house and AirPlay the game from your handheld device to that person's TV.

 

Of course, that doesn't cover the main issue, which is the lack of a way to subscribe to in-market games without having to pay for HBO, Disney, American Heroes, Lifetime Real Women, channels in languages you don't understand, channels from India, etc.

[MrTPlush]

Good luck ever being able to buy your team in-market without a cable subscription. I have a feeling you are going to be waiting a loooooooong long time. Sports are HUGE for cable companies and the fact you want to cut the cord and only have your sports is exactly why it is not going to happen. They need to keep people connected and sports are one of the major ways they do that.

[lcbj68c]

Of course, that doesn't cover the main issue, which is the lack of a way to subscribe to in-market games without having to pay for HBO, Disney, American Heroes, Lifetime Real Women, channels in languages you don't understand, channels from India, etc.

 

 

This! This is the only issue that matters for me personally. It's about the horrible culture consumers have been stuck in and this ruling that makes changing that culture towards the positive for the sports fan.

 

I initially posted this in the off-topic thread, because the spin for me is more than just how to watch Brewers games easier. A major sports organization, in lieu of continuing a lawsuit on the advice of their legal counsel, has settled on a behavior change that acknowledges it must offer a la carte programming or violate anti-trust laws. That is the big whoop. This culture change is going to ripple through the industry.