I took a second to read the complaint and WB’s argument is basically that the contract allows for us match any form of distribution and that Amazon isn’t available anywhere that Max isn’t (that isn’t true) but they limit it to being able to be used on any advice. They further argue that there is no business reason for Amazon to strictly be putting the NBA on Prime Video (and not somewhere else like TV) and that they’re simply doing this to stop WB from matching.
That doesn’t make sense though - Amazon is a steaming only service. They also argue that the upfront payment is structured solely so that WB doesn’t match m, which the NBA can simply explain as the premium Amazon is willing to pay for the service.
Their best argument is that the NBA approved before giving them an opportunity to match but the NBA’s counter would be that they are a 30-member org and they had no duty to present a proposal that owners had not agreed to yet. Further, they had an exclusive negotiating window so they were privy to where the NBA was going. Last, the NBA will argue that while TNT had a right to match any offer - nowhere in the contract does it say that it means strictly money. And that Amazon provides them a global audience and that they will be distributing the NBA globally, which WB does not and cannot do.