Am I missing something in the link provided? But the lawsuit seems to be more about in the sample provided, YES (Skank) fans not being able to get YES outside of the area, and thus having to pay for the MLB bundle where they are having to pay for all the games, instead of just the skank games they want to watch. Thus being overcharged since they only want to pay for the skank games, and not the other games.
While it seems more like a subscriber driving suit. It sure does have a feeling of say FSW being able to offer FSW on the web, and charge for it on the web. Similar to say HBO going a la cart on the web. So if an out of area Angels fan wants to watch FSW, currently they cannot because of "blackout" rules. Only through the MLB thing where they only get the game. With this suit, it sounds to me, lilke it would open up, so that FSW could then charge directly and show you the game out of market. So you could get all that great other programming about the Angels that barely exists. This would be a huge thing though for Skank fans and possibly Doggie fans.
The winners in the above scenarios. Local providers, like FSW, SportsnetLA, YES, etc. Losers would be MLB/NHL for losing whatever subscribers jump to the local providers instead of getting the national package. And this would hurt the NHL more than MLB because frankly, NHL local broadcast pulls crap for income compared to MLB local broadcast rights. But the biggest losers will be the "cable" providers. No longer will it be that sports is what is keeping people from cutting the cord. Because now sports can go streaming.
So, it's a win for all of us. And really will be a minimal loss for the Angels. Ducks it might hurt more, but nothing a Cup can't cure.