DirecTV, Sunday Ticket Plaintiffs Clash Over 9th Circuit Ruling Meaning

DirecTV and a plaintiff in a class-action antitrust lawsuit over the NFL Sunday Ticket (see 1512300027) are at odds over the significance of a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling last month on contract law. The plaintiffs, in a supplemental authority notice (in Pacer) filed last week in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, said January's Norcia vs. Samsung ruling makes it clear that a 2013 9th Circuit case cited by DirecTV wasn't binding on implied acceptance of an arbitration clause, and assumptions on which the arbitration clause section of the 2013 decision is based are questionable. The plaintiffs also said Norcia cited a 1972 California Court of Appeals ruling indicating offerees aren't bound to contractual provisions if they're unaware of them and if they are in a document without an obvious contractual nature. But DirecTV in a filing (in Pacer) Wednesday said Norcia actually reaffirms that keeping DirecTV service while knowing there are terms connected with the service means customers validly assent to those terms under California law. On the 1972 ruling, DirecTV said it has never disputed the existence of that general principle under California law, but it believes it isn't applicable to the NFL Sunday Ticket case since the DirecTV commercial agreement was mailed to the San Francisco sports bar plaintiff and the arbitration agreement is the first paragraph in bold capital letters. "The Norcia decision cannot be read to suggest that consent to a contract ... can somehow be nullified as to certain obligations because the offeree allegedly did not read them," DirecTV said. AT&T now owns that firm.