Comcast 2012 Annual Report Download - page 117

Table of Contents
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 consolidated 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 violation 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 consisting 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 of Pennsylvania and consolidated with the multidistrict litigation described above. In March 2010, the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania denied the Attorney General’
s motion to remand the case back to West Virginia state court. In June 2010,
the Attorney General moved to sever and remand the portion of the claims seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief back to West
Virginia state court. We filed a brief in opposition to the motion in July 2010.
We believe the claims in each of the pending actions described above in this item are without merit and intend to defend the actions
vigorously. We cannot predict the outcome of any of the actions described above, including a range of possible loss, or how the final
resolution of any such actions would impact our results of operations or cash flows for any one period or our consolidated financial
position. In addition, as any action nears a trial, there is an increased possibility that the action may be settled by the parties.
Nevertheless, the final disposition of any of the above actions is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial position, but could possibly be material to our consolidated results of operations or cash flows for any one period.
Other
We are a defendant in several unrelated lawsuits claiming infringement of various patents relating to various aspects of our
businesses. In certain of these cases other industry participants are also defendants, and also in certain of these cases we expect
that any potential liability would be in part or in whole the responsibility of our equipment and technology vendors under applicable
contractual indemnification provisions. We are also subject to other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of
our business. While the amount of ultimate liability with respect to such actions is not expected to materially affect our financial
position, results of operations or cash flows, any litigation resulting from any such legal proceedings or claims could be time
consuming, costly and injure our reputation.
Comcast 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K
114