Dang v. San Francisco Forty Niners
964 F. Supp. 2d 1097
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- Patrick Dang filed a putative class action against the NFL, NFLP, NFL teams, and Reebok for alleged antitrust and UCL violations related to licensing NFL IP for apparel.
- Plaintiff alleges a December 2000 agreement granted Reebok an exclusive license for NFL-branded apparel, shifting licensing dynamics and reducing interbrand competition.
- Plaintiff purchased NFL-logo apparel in November 2011 as an indirect purchaser and claims an anticompetitive overcharge flowed to consumers.
- Plaintiffs complaint asserts four counts: two Cartwright Act claims (California) and a federal Sherman/Clayton claim (nationwide) plus a UCL claim on behalf of California indirect purchasers.
- Defendants moved to dismiss (Feb. 5, 2013) arguing inadequate relevant market pleading, lack of antitrust standing, and failure to state a claim.
- The court denied the motion, applying AGC standing analysis and evaluating proposed NFL-related markets as valid under Rule 8.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the alleged NFL-related markets are cognizable | Dang pleads two markets: licensing market and retail apparel market. | Defendants contend markets are single-brand, trademark-based and not viable. | Markets pleaded are sufficiently pleaded as submarkets; not single-brand; may sustain antitrust claims. |
| Whether plaintiff has antitrust standing under AGC factors | Injuries in the retail market and indirect purchasing in licensing can confer standing. | Standing is doubtful; injuries must arise in the relevant markets. | AGC factors applied; plaintiff has antitrust standing for both markets; injury shown in retail market and traceable impact from licensing market. |
| Whether Counts II and III state claims after dismissal arguments | Count II (antitrust) and Count III (UCL) are viable given alleged market power and injury. | Counts fail due to pleading deficiencies or reliance on improper market definitions. | Counts II and III survive; claims state a plausible basis for relief. |
| Whether the complaint fails the Rule 8 plausibility standard | Allegations of exclusive licensing and price effects are plausible. | Pleading meets plausibility; adequate under Twombly/Iqbal to withstand dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- L.A. Mem’l Coliseum Com’n v. Nat’l Football League, 726 F.2d 1381 (9th Cir. 1984) (sufficient evidence supported a market for NFL-related entertainment; product market defined by league competition)
- Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 (1962) (markets may be submarkets; product boundaries depend on cross-elasticity and interchangeability)
- United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377 (1956) (definition of product market: reasonably interchangeable commodities)
- National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984) (college football broadcasts can constitute a separate relevant market when audience is uniquely attractive to advertisers)