Resnick v. Netflix, Inc., No. 11-18034 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs, individuals representing a class of Netflix subscribers, contended that a promotion agreement whereby Walmart transferred its online DVD-rental subscribers to Netflix and Netflix agreed to promote Walmart’s DVD sales business violated the Sherman Act by illegally allocating and monopolizing the online DVD rental market. The district court granted summary judgment for Netflix and awarded Netflix $710,194 in costs. The Ninth Circuit (1) affirmed the district court’s summary judgment, holding that Plaintiffs did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether they suffered antitrust in-jury-in-fact on a theory that they paid supracompetitive prices for their DVD-rental subscriptions because Netflix would have reduced its subscription price but for its allegedly anticompetitive product; and (2) affirmed in part and reversed in part the award of costs, holding that certain charges for “data upload” and “keywording” were not recoverable as costs for making copies under 28 U.S.C. 1920(4). Remanded for consideration of whether costs were properly awarded for “professional services.”
Court Description: Antitrust. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment and affirmed in part and reversed in part its award of costs in consolidated antitrust actions arising out of a promotion agreement whereby Walmart transferred its online DVD- rental subscribers to Netflix, and Netflix agreed to promote Walmart’s DVD sales business. The plaintiffs, individuals representing a class of Netflix subscribers, contended that this arrangement violated §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by illegally allocating and monopolizing the online DVD-rental market. The panel held that the subscribers did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether they suffered antitrust injury-in-fact on a theory that they paid supracompetitive prices for one of Netflix’s subscription plans because Netflix would have reduced the IN RE ONLINE DVD-RENTAL ANTITRUST LITIG. 5 price of that plan but for its allegedly anticompetitive conduct. In light of Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct. 1997 (2012), which underscored the narrow scope of taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, the panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s cost award. Finding persuasive the reasoning of the Third, Fourth, and Federal Circuits, the panel held that certain charges for “data upload” and “keywording” were not recoverable as costs for making copies under § 1920(4). The panel remanded for consideration of whether costs were properly awarded for “professional services.” The panel concluded that of the costs challenged as non-taxable under § 1920(4), only those costs attributable to optical character recognition, converting documents to TIFF, and “endorsing” activities¯all of which were explicitly required by the plaintiffs¯were recoverable on the record before it. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs for preparation of visual aids, for TIFF conversions, and for copying of paper documents. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in declining to award Netflix costs for production of certain PowerPoint documents. 6 IN RE ONLINE DVD-RENTAL ANTITRUST LITIG.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.