WWE Lists Multiple Defences In Long-Standing Lawsuit

WWE has responded to the antitrust lawsuit launched against them by MLW.

Among other accusations, MLW claims WWE engaged in “unfair business practices” including interfering with contracts and poaching talent. In its second quarter 2023 financial filing, WWE addressed the lawsuit, stating it believes the claims to be “without merit” and will defend itself “vigorously”.

That defence began on August 14th, when the company filed a response to the suit that runs to 25 pages and lists “affirmative defences” as follows.

“WWE asserts the following affirmative defenses on information and belief. In doing so, WWE does not assume any burden of proof, persuasion, or production on such defenses where such burden would otherwise fall on MLW. Additionally, WWE’s affirmative defenses are asserted in the alternative, and none of them constitute an admission of liability or that MLW is entitled to any relief.

First Defense

The First Amended Lawsuit (FAC) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Second Defense

MLW’s claims are barred because MLW lacks antitrust injury or injury in fact.

Third Defense

MLW’s equitable claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of unclean hands and in pari delicto.

Fourth Defense

MLW’s equitable claims are barred, in whole or in part, based on the doctrines of estoppel, laches, and waiver, as MLW’s claims are based, in part, on actions and events spanning decades.

Fifth Defense

MLW’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because it does not have standing to raise those claims.

Sixth Defense

MLW’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because WWE’s actions were authorized or permitted under state and/or federal law.

Seventh Defense

If and to the extent that MLW has been damaged, which WWE denies, MLW, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have mitigated its damages but did not and is therefore barred from recovery. Alternatively, any damages sustained by MLW, which WWE denies, must be reduced by the amount that such damages would have been reduced had MLW exercised reasonable diligence in mitigating its damages.

Eighth Defense

MLW’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because, to the extent that MLW suffered any injury or incurred any damages as alleged in the FAC, which WWE denies, WWE’s alleged conduct was not the actual or proximate cause of any injury or damage to MLW.

Ninth Defense

MLW’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because, to the extent that MLW suffered any injury or incurred any damages as alleged in the FAC, which WWE denies, any such injury or damage was caused and brought about by the acts, conduct, or omissions of individuals or entities other than WWE, and, as such, any recovery herein should be precluded or diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to such other individuals or entities.

Tenth Defense

MLW’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because, to the extent MLW suffered any injury or incurred any damages as alleged in the FAC, which WWE denies, any such injury or damage was caused and brought about by intervening or superseding events, factors, occurrences, conditions, or acts of others, including forces in the marketplace, and not by the alleged wrongful conduct on the part of WWE.

Eleventh Defense

MLW’s equitable claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any recovery would result in unjust enrichment to MLW.

Twelfth Defense

MLW’s claims for equitable relief are barred because MLW has an adequate remedy at law.

Fourteenth Defense

MLW’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because WWE had legitimate business and/or economic justifications for the conduct at issue.

Reservation of Rights

WWE reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as they become available. WWE has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a basis as to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, separate defenses available. WWE reserves the right to amend this Answer to add, supplement, or modify defenses based on legal theories that may be or will be divulged through clarification, through discovery, or through further factual or legal analysis of MLW’s allegations, contentions, and positions in this litigation.”

WWE admits Stephanie McMahon met with Tubi TV executive

MLW has also alleged that former WWE Chairwoman Stephanie McMahon pressured Tubi TV to “deny MLW a time slot that would compete head-to-head with WWE’s NXT programs on Tuesday nights.”

In their response, the company admitted that McMahon did meet with Tubi executive, but denied it was in relation to MLW.