Comcast 2015 Annual Report Download - page 115

Comcast Corporation
Contingencies
Antitrust Cases
We are defendants in two purported class actions originally filed in December 2003 in the United States Dis-
trict Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The potential class in
the Massachusetts case, which has been transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is our customer
base in the “Boston Cluster” area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania case is our customer base in
the “Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters,” as those terms are defined in the complaints. In each case, the
plaintiffs allege that certain customer exchange transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful
horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek damages under antitrust statutes, including treble dam-
ages.
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. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme
Court granted our petition to review the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling and in March 2013, the
Supreme Court ruled that the class had been improperly certified and reversed the judgment of the Third
Circuit. In August 2013, the plaintiffs in the Philadelphia Cluster case moved to certify a new, smaller class,
which we opposed in January 2014. In April 2014, the District Court granted our unopposed motion to de-
certify the Chicago Cluster class and the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to amend the Pennsylvania case so as
to dismiss claims relating to the Chicago Cluster. In April 2014, lead counsel for the Boston Cluster cases
withdrew, and in June 2014, new counsel requested the Boston Cluster cases be transferred to the federal
court in Boston or permission to leave to amend the complaints. The District Court denied the request and
dismissed the Boston Cluster cases. In December 2014, the District Court granted preliminary approval to a
settlement of the Philadelphia Cluster case, and in September 2015, the District Court granted final approval
of the settlement. The settlement of the Philadelphia Cluster case did not have a material effect on our results
of operations, cash flows or financial position.
In addition, we are the defendant in putative class actions filed in federal district courts throughout the coun-
try. Twenty-three actions were 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 com-
plaint 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. 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. In July 2011, we moved to compel arbitration
of most of the plaintiffs’ claims and to stay the remaining claims pending arbitration. A comprehensive settle-
ment agreement for all 23 cases that had been submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval in June
2013 was withdrawn in October 2014, and we refiled our motion to compel arbitration. The parties submitted
a settlement for the claims of current and former customers who received service in the states of California,
Washington and West Virginia in September 2015. In November 2015, the District Court did not approve the
settlement, and the plaintiffs then appealed the decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. We do not
expect these cases to have a material effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position.
Comcast 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K 112