U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, who in August granted FuboTV’s request for a preliminary injunction to bar Walt Disney, ESPN, Fox, Warner Bros. Discovery and Hulu from further developing their sports-focused streaming platform called Venu Sports, declined This against the defendants ‘ filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on Monday.

The ruling, which followed the parties’ oral argument before Garnett last Friday, was expected since Garnett had previously expressed skepticism about the defendants’ arguments when the injunction was issued. The parties have been ordered to complete the fact-finding process by March, and the case is currently scheduled for a three- to four-week trial in fall 2025.

However, the trial date could change and the trial could be canceled if the parties reach an agreement or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit finds that Garnett made an error.

At that time, the defendants appealed Garnett’s injunction decision to the Second Circuit, which has not yet appointed a three-judge panel to hear the appeal. The defendants will also likely appeal Garnett’s denial of a motion to dismiss.

The Second Circuit’s review is imminent. On the morning of January 6, 2025, the Court will hold a hearing on the appeal of the injunction at the Thurgood Marshall US Courthouse in New York City. Each side will have 15 minutes to present their best argument. During this time, jurors can and will interpret questions. Following oral argument, the Second Circuit will likely make a decision in a few weeks or months.

If the Second Circuit sides with the defendants, the court would vacate Garnett’s injunction. This development would allow ESPN and its Venu Sports partners to launch their platform. But if the Second Circuit sides with Fubo, the matter will remain as it is, and Venu Sports will remain a mere concept and not an actual offering; The injunction is expected to remain in effect until trial.

The heart of the case rests on conflicting arguments about the economic and competitive impact of Venu Sports, which was scheduled to hit the live sports content market this fall for $42.99 a month.

Garnett agreed with Fubo that Venu Sports is problematic because rival media companies have to band together to put their live sports content on one platform. Garnett worried that the agreement, which included the defendants to “refrain from investing in similar streaming platforms,” could hinder innovation or result in higher prices for consumers. In an amicus brief filed last month, President Joe Biden’s Justice Department and New York Attorney General Letitia James, along with the Democratic attorneys general of 15 other states and the District of Columbia, supported Fubo’s position.

The opposing view is that Venu Sports would offer consumers what they want and what the market demands: an affordable live sports streaming platform. In court documents, the defendants say Venu Sports is tailor-made for “price-conscious sports fans who have opted out of, or were never part of, the traditional TV ecosystem.”

The defendants, supported by an amicus brief from the attorneys general of Florida, Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi and South Carolina, emphasize that Venu Sports would offer non-exclusive content – meaning viewers do not have to purchase Venu Sports to watch – Other popular sports and non-sports networks such as NBC, CNN and Fox News would not be included.

Another consideration in this case is whether the defendants will remain bound to Venu Sports if it continues to be blocked by the courts. They are, after all, competing companies and could abandon Venu Sports to pursue other collaborations that are less likely to result in antitrust censures and legal delays.