Taken from another Rams board but there is legal precedent set for this type of lawsuit. Granted there were not PSL's at this time but we've already seen the language of the PSL's favor the NFL/Teams.
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/67208330/when-fans-sue-courts-always-favor-the-leagues
When owner Georgia Frontiere picked up her Los Angeles Rams and moved them east to St. Louis in 1995, Larry Charpentier sued, claiming the team had breached its contract with season ticket holders. In his suit, Charpentier, who originally filed suit under the name "Fight for the Rams," alleged that since 1946, the team had granted every season ticket holder the right to renew his tickets in the subsequent year -- even when the team moved from Los Angeles to Anaheim. However, when they transplanted to St. Louis, this right was denied despite the fact that the season ticket renewal form stated in part, "YOUR SEASON RESERVATION IS VALUABLE. You have the privilege to renew reserved seat locations for the upcoming season."
Charpentier stated he did not purchase his tickets "with the intent of watching a poor performing football team play for the 1994 season, only to have the team leave at the end of the year. Instead, [he] purchased [his seat] merely to 'reserve' the seat location of [his] season tickets in the future when [he] hoped that [the Rams] would provide a quality professional football team product."
Unfortunately, the court didn't see it that way and dismissed the case. In the court's opinion, several obvious -- and frankly, disturbing -- conclusions were reached. For one, "Just because a team has played for years in a particular location and has always done something a particular way does not mean that it must always do so." The court also wrote that Charpentier "did not buy the right to watch a good team or to have enlightened (in his opinion) management decisions made." And though the court admitted, "It is common knowledge that professional sports franchisees have a sordid history of arrogant disdain for the consumers of the product," the final ruling stated that Charpentier's recourse was limited to a personal decision to "give up on the team when he felt it had given up on him."
Despite this result, when Art Modell relocated the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore a year later, season ticket holders again attacked the offending franchise for trampling on their assumed rights.
Two different suits were brought. In the first, Stern v. Cleveland Browns Football Club, the fan posited that when the team made its mid-season relocation announcement, the quality of play faltered, which deprived him of "the entertainment, the aura, the enthusiasm of a Cleveland Browns Football team in 1995, and in the future." The court ruled that good or bad, the quality of the Browns' play wasn't an actionable offense. Specifically, "That the Browns performed poorly after the announced move to Baltimore cannot serve as a basis from which to find that the Browns breached their contract with season ticket holders. To allow recovery under such a theory would enable any ticket holder not satisfied with the performance of whatever entertainment the ticket procured to seek a refund for such a subjective and unreasonable response."
In the second, more money-minded suit, Beder v. Cleveland Browns, Inc., the plaintiff's claim was that post-announcement the Browns breached its contract with season ticket holders as the value of their tickets for the remainder of the season was significantly diminished. Here, the court even admitted, "This matter reflects that the announcement of the departure of the Browns was an historical moment of extraordinary public
pathos to the city of Cleveland and its surrounding region. Indeed, one would be hard put to cite, eliminating outbreaks of war, parallel examples of the public anger that would exceed that expressed in the fall of 1995." That anger, however, had a price. The Browns eventually settled -- in 2001, five years after Modell's announcement -- rewarding each class-action member with $50.
