Editing C7 Sport (section)

==Litigation ==
Early in 2001, Seven lost the rights to the AFL to a [[News Corporation (1980–2013)|News Corp Australia]] headed consortium also containing [[Publishing and Broadcasting Limited|PBL]], [[Nine Network]], [[Network Ten]] and [[Telstra]]. The new rights deal, which started with the 2002 season, saw Nine and Ten carry games on free-to-air, and a new service, [[Fox Footy Channel]], launched on Foxtel.

C7 continued to provide its service to Optus and Austar, but its programming lineup near the end of its run was extremely weak. C7 was reduced to showing [[XFL (2001)|XFL]] games (on several weeks' delay) and live [[woodchopping]] in prime time. Optus dropped the channel in late March, replacing it with [[Fox Sports (Australia)|Fox Sports]].<ref>{{cite news | newspaper =  [[The Age]]  | title =  Seven And Optus Dispute May End in Legal Channels| first = Malcolm | last = Maiden | department= Business | page = 2  | location = Melbourne | date = 30 March 2002 | access-date = 3 July 2010 | url = http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?docID=AGE020330MJ3VN63VK2E}}</ref> Soon after Austar replaced it with the [[Fox Footy Channel]].<ref>{{cite news | newspaper =  [[The Australian]]  | title =  C7 faces kicking in pay-TV maul| first = Jane | last = Schulze | page = 21  | date = 14 March 2002}}</ref> With no carrier, the channel was officially closed on 7 May.<ref>{{cite news | newspaper =  [[The Courier-Mail]]  | title =  C7 Sport scrapped by Seven| first = Matthew | last = Hart | page = 25  | date = 8 May 2002}}</ref>

Later that year, Seven launched what is considered to be the largest-ever media lawsuit in Australia, naming 22 defendants including Nine, Ten, Optus, Austar, the AFL, the NRL, Fox Sports, PBL and Telstra.

===Claim===
Seven's principal claims, relying on anti-competitive provisions in Part IV of the [[Trade Practices Act]], were that:

* Foxtel denied C7 access to Telstra's cable network and Foxtel's STBs in order to weaken C7's position when negotiating television deals with the AFL and NRL; 
* One or more of the named defendants acted illegally to collude in the marketplace and use their combined market power to prevent competition;
* Foxtel's owners (Telstra, News Corporation and PBL) signed an agreement in late-1999 to ensure Foxtel gained the AFL and NRL rights. 
* Optus's undertaking to carry Fox Sports was a breach of an 'exclusive' contract it had with Seven for provision of sports programming.

Seven claimed damages of A$480 million (amended from the original A$1.1 billion).<ref>Ryan, Peter. [http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1469680.htm C7 court case gets personal] [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation|ABC]] radio PM, 27 September 2005. Retrieved 2 September 2014</ref> Soon after the case began, the suits against Network Ten and the AFL were settled in the [[Federal Court of Australia|Federal Court]].

===Attempt to harm soccer===
During the trial it was revealed that C7 had purchased the rights to [[National Soccer League]] content with the intention of "suffocating" coverage of the sport to benefit the AFL (i.e., [[Australian rules football]]). This was evidenced by an email from C7 to the AFL complaining about the AFL's ingratitude.<ref>Masters, Roy. [http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/freeforall-over-pay-tv-rights-revealed/2005/12/18/1134840740656.html?page=2 Free-for-all over pay TV rights revealed] Business section, ''[[The Age]]'' 19 December 2005. Retrieved 2 September 2014</ref>

===Judgment===
The judgment was handed down on 27 July 2007 and telecast live by the [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation|ABC]], [[Sky News Australia|Sky News]] (owned in part by the [[Seven Media Group]] and PBL), [[Yahoo7]], the [[Sydney Morning Herald]] website and ABC Online.

C7 lost the case conclusively on most points with Justice Sackville declaring that, based upon the anti-competitive provisions of the Trade Practices Act upon which Seven relied, the case could not succeed. In a key point, he explained that "the reason is that even if each of the consortium respondents had the objective attributed to it by Seven—that of killing C7—achieving that objective could not have substantially lessened competition in the retail television market."

Justice Sackville labelled Seven as "far from a helpless and innocent victim", being "the author of its own misfortune" and stating "there is more than a hint of hypocrisy in certain of Seven's contentions." He was unable to accept Seven's chairman [[Kerry Stokes]] as a reliable witness.<ref>{{cite AustLII|FCA|1062|2007|litigants=Seven Network Limited v News Limited |pinpoint=[393]-[398] per Sackville J |courtname=auto |date=27 July 2007}}.</ref>

The judge also commented on the hefty financial cost of the case, remarking that "in my view, the expenditure of $200 million and counting on a single piece of litigation is not only extraordinarily wasteful, but borders on the scandalous".<ref>{{cite AustLII|FCA|1062|2007|litigants=Seven Network Limited v News Limited |pinpoint=[10] per Sackville J |courtname=auto |date=27 July 2007}}.</ref> The case has continually been labelled by both the legal and media sectors as one of the most extreme examples of "mega-litigation".

===Costs hearing===
In costs documents lodged on 27 August 2007, the NRL, one of the defendants in the case, argued for an indemnity costs order, the actual costs incurred by the parties, to be awarded against Seven, with the figure estimated at approximately $200 million.

On 14 September 2007, Seven agreed to a A$23.5-million costs settlement with News Limited, the Australian Football League, the National Rugby League, Channel Ten and pay-TV group Austar.<ref>Sexton, Elisabeth. [http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/seven-and-news-strike-costs-deal-in-c7-case/2007/09/14/1189276984103.html Seven and News strike costs deal in C7 case] Business section ''[[The Sydney Morning Herald]]'', 15 September 2007. Retrieved 2 September 2014</ref>

===Appeal===
In December 2009, Seven lost an appeal against the court's decision. "The appeal court said the Seven Network had failed to establish that there was any 'anti-competitive purpose' in the business dealings of the respondents in the retail TV market".<ref>Moran, Susannah.[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/seven-network-loses-c7-appeal-over-pay-tv-rights/story-e6frg996-1225806060397 Seven Network loses C7 appeal over pay-TV rights] ''[[The Australian]]'', 2 December 2009. Retrieved 2 September 2014</ref><ref>{{cite AustLII|FCAFC|166|2009|litigants=Seven Network Limited v News Limited |courtname=auto |date=2 December 2009}}.</ref>