The proceedings between WWE and MLW continue.
In January, MLW filed a lawsuit against WWE over alleged attempts to monopolize the wrestling market and undermine the competition. WWE was officially served with the lawsuit on January 14.
WWE filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing MLW failed to please "a facially sustainable relevant market, monopoly power or anticompetitive conduct, or antitrust injury." WWE also argued, "MLW's claim for intentional interference with contractual relations is unsupported by factual allegations, and what allegations MLW pleads are entirely implausible."
MLW responded that the motion to dismiss should be denied, arguing against it.
In a new filing (via PWInsider), WWE argues that MLW has failed to provide any evidence that WWE has “monopoly power” over the professional wrestling industry. The filing also states the allegation of WWE interfering with MLW’s contract negotiations are not supported by facts.
From the filing:
"First, MLW’s monopolization claim(s) remain unviable. MLW has not and cannot plead the core elements of a monopolization claim: (1) a relevant product market, (2) monopoly power, (3) anticompetitive conduct, and (4) antitrust injury. Confronted with WWE’s motion to dismiss and the deficiencies of its own Complaint, MLW now tries to reframe its Complaint through its opposition (Opp.), asserting that WWE’s exclusive contracts with Fox and NBCUniversal foreclose MLW from the “market” by cutting off its access to key distributors or purchasers. However, MLW’s complaint is silent on (1) WWE’s use of exclusive contracts, (2) whether these exclusive contracts substantially foreclose the proposed market, or (3) the existence of “key” networks, cable, and streaming services that control access to this proposed marketplace.
Second, MLW’s various state law claims should be dismissed for lack of diversity and/or supplemental jurisdiction. Even if this Court could continue to exercise jurisdiction, MLW fails to respond to WWE’s arguments in its moving brief. The intentional interference claims are not plausibly pled, and MLW has no standing to bring a UCL claim."
On MLW claiming WWE killed MLW's platform negotiations:
"Actual disruption of the prospective economic advantage is another threshold element that MLW fails to allege, and which MLW does not address in its Opposition. Based on the Complaint, VICE aired a first-run episode of MLW content, thus showing (i) that negotiations continued for months after the supposed call between a WWE employee and VICE executive, and (ii) that they were not remotely disrupted by WWE.
Finally, MLW does not allege causation and misunderstands WWE’s argument on this point. WWE is not suggesting that one potential cause for the supposed disruption of the VICE negotiations (the single communication with WWE) should be disregarded for another (MLW’s reportedly disappointing viewership). Rather, WWE argues that MLW must allege more facts to plausibly suggest that a call from a WWE employee in June is what caused VICE to terminate its
negotiations with MLW many months later, not any number of other intervening events.""MLW alleges inadequate facts about WWE’s purported interference with the Tubi contract to plead intentional interference. MLW failed to allege who at Tubi spoke to Ms. McMahon, what Ms. McMahon said to force Tubi to terminate its contract with MLW, or how frequently Ms. McMahon spoke to unnamed individuals at Tubi. As WWE noted previously, MLW also alleged that it received a letter terminating its contract with Tubi but it failed to plead the
letter’s contents or the grounds for termination."
WWE also asked the court to prevent MLW from being able to adjust and update their lawsuit, citing, "MLW requests leave to amend its Complaint if dismissed. The Court should not grant this request. Even if MLW could tailor its allegations to address the Complaint’s many current deficiencies, MLW can never plausibly plead that WWE has market power over networks, cable, and streaming services, some of the wealthiest and largest corporations on earth, all with the means and ability to produce their own professional wrestling content or buy it from the myriad or other content creators. Accordingly, any amendment to the federal antitrust claim is futile and, as explained, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims."
There are no hearings set until September 29.
