According to the Complaint, Virtual Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (“vMVPDs”), like Fubo TV Inc, aggregate live and on-demand television content for delivery over the internet. Unlike traditional cable TV or satellite provider, Fubo does not supply its own data transport infrastructure (e.g., the cable) and instead relies on subscribers to maintain their own internet connection to access its service. vMVPDs offer service and product bundles to subscribers offering channels at a lower monthly rate than offered by traditional cable/satellite providers. There currently are 271 online video services vMVPDs that provide viewers with content from broadcast and cable network as well as streaming providers.

The Complaint alleges Fubo made false and misleading statements to the public throughout the Class Period and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operational, and financial prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading statements concerning: (i) Fubo’s growth in subscriber and profitability was unsustainable past the one-time seasonal surge; (ii) Fubo’s offering of products would be subject to cost escalation; (iii) Fubo could not successfully compete and perform as a sports book operator and could not capitalize on its online sports wagering opportunity; (iv) Fubo’s data and inventory was not differentiated to allow Fubo to achieve its long-term advertising growth goals; (v) Fubo’s valuation was overstated in light of its total revenue and subscription levels; and (vi) the acquisition of Balto Sport did not provide the stated synergies and internal expertise, and did not expand the Company’s addressable market into sports wagering; and (vii) as a result, Defendants’ statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On April 29, 2021, the Court issued an Order consolidating cases and appointing Lead Plaintiff and Counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed an amended Complaint on July 12. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended Complaint on September 10. On March 30, 2023, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff was given leave to amend the Complaint.

Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended Complaint on May 22, 2023. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the second amended Complaint on August 1.

On March 28, 2024, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff was given leave to amend the Complaint.