Key Points
- The Supreme Court declined to hear Nexstar’s appeal seeking to block DIRECTV’s antitrust lawsuit.
- The decision leaves intact a 2025 appeals court ruling that revived DIRECTV’s case.
- DIRECTV accuses Nexstar, Mission Broadcasting and White Knight of coordinating retransmission rates; Nexstar has denied any wrongdoing.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal from Nexstar Media Group seeking to block an antitrust lawsuit brought by DIRECTV over retransmission consent negotiations involving stations owned by Nexstar, Mission Broadcasting and White Knight Broadcasting.
The decision leaves intact a December 2025 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that revived DIRECTV’s lawsuit and allows the satellite television provider to continue pursuing its claims in federal court in New York.
DIRECTV filed the lawsuit in 2023, accusing Nexstar, Mission and White Knight of coordinating negotiations in markets where Nexstar and one of the other broadcasters own stations affiliated with major television networks.
Mission and White Knight own fewer than three dozen television stations between them, with their stations operated by Nexstar through local management agreements.
DIRECTV alleges the companies used a common negotiator who effectively acted as an agent of Nexstar and improperly shared confidential retransmission rates, financial information and negotiating positions. The company also alleges the broadcasters coordinated blackout dates and public messaging during carriage disputes.
DIRECTV refused to pay the rates sought by the broadcasters, resulting in stations going dark for approximately one million subscribers. The company says thousands of customers subsequently canceled their subscriptions, causing DIRECTV to lose revenue.
Stock Price
A federal district court dismissed the lawsuit in 2024, but the Second Circuit reversed that decision in December 2025. The appeals court determined DIRECTV could pursue its antitrust claims based on alleged lost profits even though it did not pay the allegedly inflated retransmission rates.
Nexstar appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing a company should only be able to pursue a price-fixing claim if it actually paid the allegedly inflated price. Nexstar also argued the Second Circuit ruling conflicted with decisions from other federal appeals courts and could substantially broaden antitrust liability for sellers.
DIRECTV disputed those arguments and maintained there was no conflict among the federal appeals courts.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case does not resolve DIRECTV’s underlying allegations or determine whether Nexstar violated antitrust law. Instead, it allows the lawsuit to continue under the Second Circuit ruling.
Discovery in the case has already produced additional evidence that DIRECTV says supports its allegations. In August, DIRECTV told the court that communications produced by Nexstar showed coordination between the companies through media consultant Eric Sahl.
DIRECTV alleges those records show Nexstar, Mission and White Knight coordinating retransmission rates and negotiating positions while using similar strategies for blackouts and public messaging.
Nexstar has denied any wrongdoing.
The retransmission consent lawsuit is separate from ongoingn litigation involving DIRECTV and several state attorneys general over Nexstar’s acquisition of TEGNA.
More Stories
- DIRECTV says Nexstar documents support retransmission consent price-fixing claim
- DIRECTV presses ahead with antitrust lawsuit against Nexstar (October 2023)
- What is retransmission consent? How TV station blackouts happen
- DIRECTV urges Supreme Court to reject Nexstar retransmission appeal
- Nexstar demands higher fees from DIRECTV, threatens channel blackout (June 2023)
- DIRECTV sues Nexstar over retransmission fees (March 2023)
