Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—S.D.N.Y.: On remand, DIRECTV transmits viable antitrust claims against Nexstar, (Jul 14, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

Nexstar arguments aimed at dismissal for failure to state a claim, which the court did not consider earlier, were too dependent on an undeveloped factual record.

After dismissal, reversal, and remand, the federal district court in New York City further extended denial of dismissal of a DIRECTV, LLC (DIRECTV) complaint against Nexstar Media Group, Inc. (Nexstar) and its “side-cars” on grounds the district court did not consider earlier. First, the court held the complaint plausibly alleged Sherman Act Section 1 claims based on the Nexstar defendants’ alleged use of a shared consultant and other circumstantial evidence of collusion and parallel conduct aimed at fixing the price of “Big-4” broadcast television retransmission rights. Next, the court held DIRECTV alleged a plausible nationwide market and submarkets for those retransmission rights. Collusion to fix prices, if proved, would be an “archetypal” per se restraint of trade. Allegations about proprietary information exchange between the Nexstar defendants formed a discrete basis for a Sherman Act Section 1 claim under the rule of reason. DIRECTV’s state law claims also survived the Nexstar defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (DirecTV, LLC v. Nexstar Media Group, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-02221-PKC (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 13, 2026)).

Background. In March 2024, the district court dismissed a DIRECTV antitrust lawsuit against Nexstar and its so-called “sidecar” broadcasters, Mission Broadcasting, Inc. (Mission) and White Knight Broadcasting, Inc. (White Knight). The complaint alleged the defendants colluded to fix the prices of fees demanded from DIRECTV for rights to retransmit the popular “Big-4” network television channels. The district court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. The March 2024 opinion did not address other arguments for dismissal.

In December 2025, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed dismissal and remanded. The panel rejected the Nexstar argument that DIRECTV alleged injuries that were too speculative or attenuated for standing. The panel saw that DIRECTV plausibly alleged antitrust injury by way of reduced output. The court also found DIRECTV was an efficient enforcer of the antitrust laws; however, the dissent disagreed there.

On remand, Nexstar sought a decision on those parts of its earlier motion seeking dismissal for failure to state a claim on DIRECTV’s three Sherman Act claims. It likewise sought Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of DIRECTV claims under New York law for breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.

The three Sherman Act Section 1 claims were: (1) per se conspiracy to increase retransmission fees; (2) conspiracy to increase retransmission fees under the rule of reason; (3) unlawful information exchange among the Nexstar defendants. The court denied dismissal of these claims and the state court claims.

Antitrust claims. The court held the complaint plausibly alleged claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act for price fixing of retransmission fees demanded in negotiations with DIRECTV. The complaint alleged the defendants all retained the same consultant for the disputed negotiations. DIRECTV alleged the consultant made demands that were detrimental to the economic self-interest of Mission and White Knight for the benefit of Nexstar; that Mission and White Knight lacked independent management; and that the Nexstar defendants regularly shared confidential and proprietary information. The complaint also alleged other circumstances of parallel conduct, collusion, and coordination. For example, DIRECTV alleged the defendants used identical press releases about their separate retransmission-consent fee disputes. These and other assorted allegations were enough to allege that the Nexstar defendants acted “in concert” to fix the retransmission fees demanded from DirectTV.

Relevant markets. Next, the court found DIRECTV plausibly alleged the existence of relevant product and geographic markets. The court noted here that courts ordinarily do not dismiss complaints for deficient market definition because that would require a “deeply fact-intensive inquiry.”

First, DIRECTV described how the FCC and DOJ have historically treated Big-4 stations as distinct from other broadcast stations and cable channels. The Nexstar defendants argued non-broadcast channels like ESPN and streaming services like Netflix or HBO offer programming similar to Big-4 stations, but the court said this involved fact questions best left until after discovery.

DIRECTV also plausibly alleged that the United States is a relevant geographic market because retransmitters like DIRECTV negotiate agreements for national or otherwise large multi-state geographic footprints. DIRECTV additionally pleaded distinct geographic submarkets called “designated market areas” (DMAs). An example would be metro New York City.

The court noted some defendant overlap in DMAs. Nexstar owns Big-4 television states in 23 DMAs where Mission also owns a Big-4 station. DIRECTV focused its claims on these “overlap DMAs.” The FCC and DOJ also treat DMAs as distinct geographic markets, for example, during review of proposed mergers between broadcasters.

The court concluded here that DIRECTV plausibly identified a national geographic market that included distinct individual DMA geographic submarkets. Again, further ado about the facts was best left until after the close of discovery.

Unreasonable restraint. The court held the complaint plausibly alleged an unreasonable restraint of trade. The complaint alleged facts that described collusion to fix retransmission fees. If proved, the court said collusion would be “archetypal” per se restraint of trade. The court also saw that allegations about inflated retransmission fees and output suppression, through station blackouts that had no countervailing benefits, plausibly stated a claim under the rule of reason.

Information exchange. Allegations about non-public, commercially sensitive information exchange also formed a discrete basis for a Sherman Act Section 1 claim under the rule of reason. A screenshot supported allegations that White Knight shared such proprietary information with Nexstar about retransmission fees. Retention of the same consultant enhanced plausibility here.

State law claims. The court also held the complaint plausibly stated claims under New York law. First, the court denied dismissal of the breach of contract claims. At the dismissal stage, the court was hard put to interpret the retransmission consent agreement (RCA) non-disparagement clause between DIRECTV and its side-cars or to assess whether the defendants actually caused DIRECTV to lose thousands of subscribers due to disparagement. The court again noted the record needed development. As for breach of RCA confidentiality obligations, the issue of competitive disadvantage to DIRECTV was better left until after the close of discovery.

Next, the court held the complaint plausibly alleged that Nexstar tortiously interfered with the Mission and White Knight RCAs. The defendants argued DIRECTV did not plausibly allege Nexstar had knowledge of the terms of the RCAs, especially the non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses. However, the complaint described Nexstar transmittal of a screenshot that showed confidential terms of the RCA between White Knight and Nexstar. The complaint also described the close economic relationship between them.

Last, the court declined to dismiss the tortious interference with prospective economic advantage claims at the pleading stage. Although DIRECTV did not expressly plead these in the alternative, the court saw them as potential avenues for relief in the event that DIRECTV’s other state law claims might fail.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-02221-PKC.

Judge: Castel, P.

Attorneys: Joshua Hazan (King & Spalding LLP) for DirecTV, LLC. David William Haller (Covington & Burling LLP) for Nexstar Media Group, Inc.

Companies: DirecTV, LLC; Nexstar Media Group, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust NewYorkNews