DIRECTV has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Nexstar Media Group’s effort to revive a lower-court victory in a retransmission consent antitrust case involving Nexstar and two broadcast companies whose stations it operates.
In a petition filed with the Supreme Court late last week, attorneys for DIRECTV opposed a request by Nexstar’s lawyers for a writ of certiorari after receiving additional time from the court to respond.
The petition was filed by Nexstar, Mission Broadcasting and White Knight Broadcasting after an appeals court reversed a lower court’s decision that dismissed DIRECTV’s federal antitrust claims, effectively reviving the lawsuit.
The original case stems from a March 2023 complaint by DIRECTV that accused Nexstar, Mission and White Knight of conspiring to raise and fix retransmission consent rates for “Big Four” network affiliates. DIRECTV says the alleged conduct caused financial harm when stations were blacked out from its satellite television service during failed carriage negotiations.
The broadcasters asked the Supreme Court to decide whether a private plaintiff can bring a per se price-fixing conspiracy claim over a purchase it never made. Their argument is that DIRECTV did not pay the rates at issue and therefore did not suffer the type of antitrust injury needed to proceed.
DIRECTV frames the issue differently: Its attorneys say the question is whether a plaintiff that was the target of an alleged price-fixing scheme that prevented renewal of an existing multi-year contract is categorically barred from bringing antitrust claims.
“Contrary to petitioners’ characterization, no court has held that a plaintiff who is unable to purchase a product as a result of a price-fixing scheme is ‘necessarily’ barred from invoking the antitrust laws,” DIRECTV’s attorneys wrote.
The Second Circuit sided with DIRECTV in December 2025, reversing a ruling by U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel in New York. Castel had found DIRECTV lacked antitrust standing because it did not pay the allegedly supracompetitive retransmission rates and, as a non-purchaser, suffered an indirect and speculative injury.
A divided Second Circuit panel disagreed. Judges Denny Chin and Steven Menashi found that DIRECTV had plausibly alleged lost profits tied to reduced output from the alleged conduct and could proceed as an efficient enforcer of antitrust law. Judge Richard Sullivan dissented.
DIRECTV told the Supreme Court that the Second Circuit’s ruling does not conflict with Ninth and Tenth Circuit cases cited by Nexstar and its partners. Instead, DIRECTV argues those courts left room for antitrust standing when facts such as a prior course of dealing support a non-purchaser’s claim.
“The Second Circuit applied the same approach and held that DirecTV had antitrust standing under the particular facts of this case, where Petitioners’ scheme was aimed solely at DirecTV and disrupted the parties’ long-established course of dealing,” DIRECTV’s attorneys wrote.
DIRECTV also rejected the broadcasters’ argument that injury from blackouts is speculative, saying retransmission disputes depend on the leverage created when viewers lose access to popular local stations. The company argues that blackouts are intended to pressure distributors by using subscribers’ desire to watch local broadcast channels.
The filing made to the Supreme Court is available to view by clicking or tapping here.
