Comcast 2011 Annual Report Download - page 124

Classes of Chicago Cluster and Philadelphia Cluster customers were certified in October 2007 and January
2010, respectively. We appealed the class certification in the Philadelphia Cluster case to the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals, which affirmed the class certification in August 2011 and denied our petition for a rehearing
en banc in September 2011. While we have given notice to the class, we filed a writ of certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court asking that it review the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling. In March 2010, we moved for
summary judgment dismissing all of the plaintiffs’ claims in the Philadelphia Cluster. A hearing on our sum-
mary judgment was held in January 2012. We expect that the Philadelphia Cluster case will proceed to trial in
2012. The plaintiffs’ claims concerning the other two clusters are stayed pending determination of the Phila-
delphia Cluster claims.
We also are among the defendants in a purported class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in September 2007. The potential class is comprised of all persons residing in the
United States who have subscribed to an expanded basic level of video service provided by one of the
defendants. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants who produce video programming have entered into
agreements with the defendants who distribute video programming via cable and satellite (including us),
which preclude the distributor defendants from reselling channels to customers on an “unbundled” basis in
violation of federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief requiring each
distributor defendant to resell certain channels to its customers on an “unbundled” basis. In October 2009,
the Central District of California issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. In June
2011, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s order; however after the
death of one of the judges on the Ninth Circuit panel, the Court withdrew its June 2011 opinion and, as a
result, we expect that a new opinion will be issued.
In addition, we are the defendant in 22 purported class actions filed in federal district courts throughout the
country. All of these actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings. In a con-
solidated complaint filed in November 2009 on behalf of all plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation, the plaintiffs
allege that we improperly “tie” the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of premium cable services in viola-
tion of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade
practices acts in California, Illinois and Alabama. The plaintiffs also allege a claim for unjust enrichment and
seek relief on behalf of a nationwide class of our premium cable customers and on behalf of subclasses con-
sisting of premium cable customers from California, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Washington. In
January 2010, we moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment and violations of
the unfair/deceptive trade practices acts of Illinois and Alabama. In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint alleging violations of additional state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices
acts on behalf of new subclasses in Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico and
West Virginia. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs omitted their unjust enrichment claim, as well as their state
law claims on behalf of the Alabama, Illinois and Pennsylvania subclasses. In June 2011, the plaintiffs filed
another amended complaint alleging only violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, antitrust law in
Washington and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California and Washington. The plaintiffs seek relief
on behalf of a nationwide class of our premium cable customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of
premium cable customers from California and Washington. In July 2011, we moved to compel arbitration of
most of the plaintiffs’ claims and to stay the remaining claims pending arbitration.
The West Virginia Attorney General also filed a complaint in West Virginia state court in July 2009 alleging that
we improperly “tie” the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of digital cable services in violation of the West
Virginia Antitrust Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The Attorney General also
alleges a claim for unjust enrichment/restitution. We removed the case to the United States District Court for
West Virginia, and it was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
Comcast 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K 122