WWE Presents Several Defenses in Ongoing Lengthy Lawsuit

WWE has issued a reply to the antitrust lawsuit initiated against them by MLW. Among the allegations presented, MLW asserts that WWE participated in "unjust business practices," which encompassed actions like contract interference and talent recruitment. In their financial filing for the second quarter of 2023, WWE officially addressed the lawsuit, expressing their belief that the claims lack substantial basis and emphasizing their commitment to a robust defense.

Initiating this defense on August 14th, WWE filed a comprehensive 25-page response to the lawsuit. This response outlines their "affirmative defenses" as below.

MLW has also laimed that Stephanie McMahon, the former Chairwoman of WWE, exerted pressure on Tubi TV to prevent MLW from securing a time slot that directly competed with WWE's NXT programs on Tuesday nights.

In their official statement, the company acknowledged that McMahon did indeed have a meeting with a Tubi executive, but vehemently refuted any connection between that meeting and MLW.

---

“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.”