I went ahead and submitted a records request. I think that someone (either NWCA or OSU or both) attempted to license rights it had already licensed; since original rights would belong to OSU as home team, probably OSU. But NWCA is co-defendant so I imagine they, and not OSU, approached NBC and Track.
Key to dispute is probably the language in Flo's contract with Oklahoma State, and how it defined the matches to which Flo would get exclusive rights; if language was simply "all home dual matches" then it was probably game over right there. OSU/NWCA's argument was likely that DCS matches weren't contemplated at the time of the original Flo/OSU contract, and so DCS matches should be seen as falling outside the Flo/OSU contract.
Legal arguments aside, it's easier to root for NWCA here since OSU/NWCA's deal with NBC would've brought the match to a wider audience of wrestling fans. Only winner here is Flo.
Link to Flo's lawsuit against OSU, Track, NWCA, NBC
here. (PDF on Dropbox)
Pretty much what I guessed. Flo cites its exclusive deal with OSU, says OSU breached agreement and all co-defendants conspired to tortiously interfere with the agreement. Was kind of hoping to see agreement itself attached as an exhibit but they didn't bother. Judging from subsequent events (case voluntarily dismissed, Flo continues to advertise match) OSU et al quickly caved.
Most interesting stuff is in paragraphs 20-22, which finds Flo describing how it would be harmed if it lost exclusivity. No mention of the recent price increase.
20. The business model of FloSports relies upon attracting viewers to pay to view a high profile event such as the Oklahoma State February 19 Dual Meet, and converting some percentage of these viewers to longer-term paid subscribers, which creates significant value in FloSports' business. As a result, if Plaintiff is unable to exclusively stream the Oklahoma State February 19 Dual Meet in accordance with its rights, it will lose forever an indeterminable number of long-term subscribers. This loss will, in turn, do irreparable and substantial damage to the value of Plaintiff's business. In addition, Plaintiff relies upon data gleaned from streaming high profile events to further refine and enhance its business strategy, marketing, pricing, and operations. If Plaintiff is unable to exclusively stream the Oklahoma State February 19 Dual Meet in accordance with its rights, this data will never be available to Plaintiff and cannot be recreated.
21. As the holder of exclusive rights to stream Oklahoma State home dual wrestling events, Plaintiff has a loyal subscriber base who have paid for, and now expect, to watch all Oklahoma State home dual wrestling meets on Plaintiff's platform. If Defendants are not enjoined from streaming the Oklahoma State February 19 Dual Meet, Plaintiff's subscribers would be unable to watch the meet on Flo Sports, and would be forced to watch it on Plaintiff's competitor's platform. Plaintiff will lose some unknowable portion of these customers to its competitor, potentially for the foreseeable future, and may also suffer damage as upset subscribers seek refunds from Plaintiff when their expectations are not met. Advertisers and potential advertisers will follow.
22. The full extent of damages that will be caused cannot be accurately measured or fully compensated in money damages, as the exact amount of customers and the dollar figure attributed to their viewing habits during and even after the event cannot be fully known. Many times, these are customers who remain loyal and will continue to watch sporting events of all kinds through their preferred streaming provider. Additionally, this affects Plaintiff's ability to attract advertisers who want to maximize their audience of sports fans.