Opinion ID: 433843
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 Fine applied to appear on six game shows over a four-year period. In July 1978, he competed on Tic Tac Dough, winning $5,393 in cash and prizes. In May 1980, he applied to be on Bulls Eye, but was not selected. In November 1980, he appeared on Password Plus and won $5,682.85 in cash and prizes. In January 1982, he competed on Blockbusters and received $211.45 in prizes. That same month Fine applied to become a contestant on Joker's Wild. His application was accepted and he was invited to return to the studio for taping. When the show's producers learned of his previous game show appearances, however, they disqualified him. In February 1982, Fine applied to appear on Battlestars, but was not chosen. 3 During this period, Fine was a law student at Pepperdine University and held several part-time jobs as a waiter, municipal court clerk, agent-trainee, and salesman. Between 1978 and 1982 Fine's taxable income was $15,494.34, of which $8,517.85 represented game show winnings. 4 The three network defendants have different standards on non-celebrity game show appearances. The networks have agreements with their respective game show producers requiring compliance with these standards. NBC limits contestants to three game shows in a lifetime. ABC will not accept contestants who have appeared on a game show once in the past twelve months or twice within the past five years. CBS eliminates applicants who have been on one game show in the past twelve months or on two game shows in a lifetime. 5 Two of the producers have their own standards on non-celebrity appearances. Barry and Enright Productions limits contestants to one show within the past twelve months or not more than two shows within the past ten years. Merrill Heatter Productions requires contestants to agree not to appear on any other game show in the ninety days following an appearance on a Merrill Heatter game show. 6 The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that Fine did not have standing because he had not alleged injury to his business or property as required by section 4 of the Clayton Act. The court denied standing for section 16 injunctive relief based on a finding that Fine failed to demonstrate a significant threat of future injury.