Attorneys for the WWE have filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint against Major League Wrestling. The lawsuit was filed by MLW claiming that WWE violated antitrust laws as it used anti-competitive measures to preclude competitors in the market of professional wrestling media programming.
WWE Motion to Dismiss FAC o… by MMA Payout
Previously, the WWE filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit originally filed by MLW. The Court allowed MLW to amend its Complaint in lieu of dismissal. In the First Amended Complaint, MLW included information on “predatory conduct” of WWE as its new media partner REELZ airs the promotio9n’s content but despite REELZ content being available on the Peacock Network, it will not show MLW due to its current affiliation with WWE. Nevertheless, WWE renewed its right to dismiss the lawsuit prior to filing a responsive pleading.
WWE’s motion is predicated on several issues.
First, the WWE contests the MLW labeling of the relevant market which the plaintiff claims is “the sale or licensing of media rights for professional wrestling programming.” WWE contends that the market is broader than just professional wrestling programming while MLW argues that it should be limited to the niche market of professional wrestling programming. The issue argued by MLW relates to several attempts by MLW to gain a foothold with its wrestling programming.
MLW had a deal with Vice TV to air its video library. However, according to MLW, a WWE executive conveyed to Vice that Vince McMahon was “pissed” that Vice TV had signed MLW. Subsequently, further negotiations between Vice and MLW for a future relationship did not go forward and the promotion was taken off the schedule. Next, MLW had signed a deal with Tubi but that was nixed when Stephanie McMahon talked with Fox executives. Tubi is a subsidiary of Fox. As a result, MLW claims that WWE has stifled the market through anti-competitive means. This past fall, it forged a deal to air programming on the Reelz Network.
MLW argues in its First Amended Complaint the reasons for its finding of the market in this lawsuit.
Second, WWE argues that MLW’s lawsuit fails to show that WWE has monopoly power over the vast array of networks and streaming platforms it does not have commercial relationships. This would allude to the
Third, WWE notes that MLW’s claims that it foreclosed opportunities with wrestlers due to exclusive contracts and venues where it sought to hold shows falls flat because of the lack of evidence. This relates to allegations of talent poaching by WWE. This includes incidents where there were claims that they contacted AEW talent under contract with Tony Khan’s promotion. It also cites an incident where WWE signed one of MLW’s talent in order to keep him away from MLW.
Finally, WWE claims that despite its allegations, antitrust law “protects competition, not competitors.” The argument goes with the WWE theory that MLW has not proven a violation of law. Rather, WWE has been more successful in receiving television contracts for its content over MLW.
MLW cited specific actions in which WWE has acted in a predatory manner toward its competitors in the mark. The Court will need to decide if the relevant market determined by MLW is appropriate and if they have a claim based on the facts presented.
It also noted that WWE has 92% of the professional wrestling media market. According to the MLW First Amended Complaint, AEW has 6% of the relevant market with the other 2% going to New Japan Wrestling, MLW and Women of Wrestling. The dominant market share has created a high barrier to entry according to MLW.
MLW will respond to the WWE First Amended Motion to Dismiss shortly and one might expect similar responses to WWE’s first motion but the production of more facts related to its claims of anti-competitive conduct will be more prevalent to prove to the Court it has a colorable claim.
Leave a Reply