![Television Television](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/tv_64.png)
![The Courts The Courts](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/court_64.png)
Judge Bars Disney, Warner, Fox From Launching Sports Streamer Venu (variety.com) 38
A federal judge blocked the launch of Venu, a sports streaming joint venture by Disney, Fox, and Warner Bros. Discovery, due to concerns it would substantially lessen competition and harm FuboTV. Variety reports: Fubo launched in 2015 as a start-up focused on streaming sports programming. [...] Venu, expected to launch in late August ahead of the start of the NFL's coming fall season and priced at an initial price tag of $42.99 per month, was to carry all of the sports offerings of ESPN, Fox Sports 1 and 2, and TNT for a price that is seen as more than a regional sports network but less than a full programming package available via YouTube TV or Hulu + Live TV. The three parent companies are targeting a new generation of consumers who disdain the high costs of traditional cable packages are more at home with signing up for streaming venues that are relatively easy to get in and out of based on the availability of favorite entertainment programs or sporting events.
Judge Garnett found that once Venu launches, FuboTV would face "a swift exodus" of large numbers of subscribers, and indicated she felt "that Fubo's bankruptcy and delisting of the company's stock will likely soon follow. These are quintessential harms that money cannot adequately repair." Fubo alleged that Venu's launch "will cause it to lose approximately 300,000 to 400,000 (or nearly 30%) of its subscribers, suffer a significant decline in its ability to attract new subscribers, lose between $75 and $95 million in revenue, and be transformed into a penny stock awaiting delisting from the New York Stock Exchange, all before year-end 2024," the judge said in her decision. "We respectfully disagree with the court's ruling and are appealing it," Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery said in a statement. "We believe that Fubo's arguments are wrong on the facts and the law, and that Fubo has failed to prove it is legally entitled to a preliminary injunction. Venu Sports is a pro-competitive option that aims to enhance consumer choice by reaching a segment of viewers who currently are not served by existing subscription options."
Judge Garnett found that once Venu launches, FuboTV would face "a swift exodus" of large numbers of subscribers, and indicated she felt "that Fubo's bankruptcy and delisting of the company's stock will likely soon follow. These are quintessential harms that money cannot adequately repair." Fubo alleged that Venu's launch "will cause it to lose approximately 300,000 to 400,000 (or nearly 30%) of its subscribers, suffer a significant decline in its ability to attract new subscribers, lose between $75 and $95 million in revenue, and be transformed into a penny stock awaiting delisting from the New York Stock Exchange, all before year-end 2024," the judge said in her decision. "We respectfully disagree with the court's ruling and are appealing it," Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery said in a statement. "We believe that Fubo's arguments are wrong on the facts and the law, and that Fubo has failed to prove it is legally entitled to a preliminary injunction. Venu Sports is a pro-competitive option that aims to enhance consumer choice by reaching a segment of viewers who currently are not served by existing subscription options."
Re: (Score:2)
> Are you saying you're guaranteed your business in the face of, granted stiff, competition?
Remember, corporations are legal fictions and exist only at the pleasure of the government. So they can get ordered around by as little or as big of a tyrannical judiciary as they please.
Most people love this situation to be honest. It's simply too dangerous to run a business without a corporation now due to the same lawless judiciary.
It didn't used to be this way.
I don't know how to break this to you (Score:2)
As for a lawless judiciary I agree there are problems but they are uniformly in favor of corporations and the ultra wealthy. In this case the law is being applied exactly is written. It's an obvious antitrust violation to allow Disney to open up sports venues.
And besides I thought guys like you hated Disney.
Plumbing then Companies (Score:4, Informative)
Companies as a separate entity from their owners seems to date back to possibly the 1600's if you count the British and Dutch East India companies but these were quasi-government organizations. The first private companies with limited liability, and hence an existence arguably separate from their owner(s), apparently only goes back to 1800 [cambridge.org]. Anyway thanks for the interesting distraction looking this stuff up!
Re: (Score:2)
And? Are you saying you're guaranteed your business in the face of, granted stiff, competition?
No, you're allowed to prevent actions that might be harmfully illegal, until the courts can settle things out.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you look up what competition means in regards to markets.
its called AUTUMN (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Fall is the period between summer and Winter.
Unless, perhaps, one is a subject to a man who claims it is God's will that he have the right to rule over men.
$43 per month (Score:2)
Is expensive once you tack on the cost of the internet connection, but if all you are interested in is sports it could be attractive.
How much does FUBO cost?
Re: (Score:3)
Last time I looked at Fubo TV, the cheapest I could get it was still north of $70/month. Roughly the same amount we saved by dropping cable TV in the first place.
I don't get it (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean I guess there's monopoly concerns and it would suck for Fubo, but I'm not sure why they're entitled to keep a competitor out of the market.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean I guess there's monopoly concerns and it would suck for Fubo, but I'm not sure why they're entitled to keep a competitor out of the market.
I think the judge sees that there currently are (non-existent) legitimate competitors for Fubo and then there are 3 truly massive media corporations with unlimited money and other resources teaming up together to run the young upstart out of town.
I can see the argument also being made that once those 3 truly massive media corporations join forces to create a sports network, it'll take an anti-trust lawsuit to break up the monopoly.
It seems there's a recent precedent: hulu.com. Hulu was created by a consorti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean I guess there's monopoly concerns and it would suck for Fubo, but I'm not sure why they're entitled to keep a competitor out of the market.
I think the judge sees that there currently are (non-existent) legitimate competitors for Fubo and then there are 3 truly massive media corporations with unlimited money and other resources teaming up together to run the young upstart out of town.
I'm wondering if the source of the claim is the big corps have an effective monopoly on sports content, and even if they're not going to lock out Fubo they're going to give their new offering a way better deal so Fubo can't compete.
That makes more sense to me as a way to stop a monopoly (in the form of a consortium) from abusing its position.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean I guess there's monopoly concerns and it would suck for Fubo, but I'm not sure why they're entitled to keep a competitor out of the market.
I think the judge sees that there currently are (non-existent) legitimate competitors for Fubo and then there are 3 truly massive media corporations with unlimited money and other resources teaming up together to run the young upstart out of town.
Fubo is not the only competitor. How about YouTube TV? Would this conglomerate also put YTTV out of business? If so, that would be a case for anticompetitive behavior, but if not, then perhaps that indicates weakness on the part of Fubo.
dafuq? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh....right. And fuck all those consumers who could service at "half the prices of current services".
Re:dafuq? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would think you'd have to be particularly stupid not to know how the story of how stuff like this ends. This is market collusion to *reduce competition*. In what world do you think this ends up net positive for consumers? "Approve us. The first hit is half the price, so consumers love us."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Preventing a new company from entering the market is the very definition of limiting competition.
Holy shit bringing back antitrust law enforcement (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Free love!
indemnity (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What? (Score:1, Interesting)
A new competitor can't enter the market because....,,,it would be bad for competition?!
Re:What? (Score:4)
Please explain to me how this is "a new competitor".
Re: (Score:2)
because oligopolies are a new thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
Judge was perhaps right (Score:4, Insightful)
These three sleazy corporations want to fight a monopoly by creating another. This is bad.
If every one of the three created its own competitor to fubo, then it would be good. Can somebody give me a reasonable answer why three giant corporations decided to play in one team? Why else if not to create a monopoly?
Ah, and duck the greedy mouse, by the way, in all of its endeavours.
When you control over 70% of the market..... (Score:2)
Well (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
no not double the rates, provides enhanced add free service at a higher rate, oh you wanted your mobile device and laptop to work at the same time, here is another tack on fee. but fuck it costs less then what you are going to lose in all that sport betting today.