Alito

Justice Samuel Alito was forced to recuse himself from nearly six dozen cases brought to the Supreme Court in the last 10 months because the Alito family owns stock in many of the corporations involved in litigation.

When Alito’s wife Martha Ann’s father died last year, the Alito family inherited a wealth of stock worth up to $1.25 million in some of America’s largest companies, including AT&T and Verizon Communications.

The Associated Press reports Alito’s tardy financial disclosure for 2012 revealed the justice’s reasons for recusal: his sudden ownership of shares in large telecom, pharmaceutical, oil and gas, and tobacco companies.

Federal law requires justices to step away from cases where there is a financial conflict of interest. Alito’s inherited stock represents just such a conflict.

In one case, however, Alito found himself holding Comcast Corp. stock after hearing arguments in a massive class action antitrust case representing two million customers the plaintiffs argued were being overcharged by an illegitimate cable monopoly.

Alito’s Comcast stock was purchased and sold last December. The Court’s 5-4 decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, was announced March 27. Alito’s deciding vote fundamentally raised the bar on future lawsuits, making it much more difficult for class action cases to be brought before the courts.

The Comcast suit, in the courts since 2003, argued that cable subscribers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware were overcharged at least $875 million because of Comcast’s efforts to monopolize cable service in the Philadelphia area. Comcast amassed its dominant position by buying or swapping cable systems in the region to create a single large cable provider serving the majority of southern New Jersey, Delaware, and southeastern Pennsylvania. By 2002, the lawsuit claimed, Comcast had achieved a 77.8 percent market share.

Comcast argued the lawsuit was too complicated and its proposed method of calculating damages was faulty. The Court’s conservative justices agreed with Comcast, finding the lawsuit fell “far short of establishing that damages are capable of measurement.”

• Voting for Comcast’s position: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
• Voting against Comcast: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

A study recently published in the Minnesota Law Review found the current Supreme Court is by far the most corporate-friendly of any court in at least 65 years, noting “the Roberts court is indeed highly pro-business — the conservatives extremely so and the liberals only moderately liberal.”

The top two most likely to vote in favor of big business among all justices seated since 1946 are Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

“There was a time when being ‘business-friendly’ meant giving corporations a leg-up and a level playing field because doing so creates jobs and bolsters the economy,” wrote Supreme Court reporter Jonathan Valania. “Today, ‘business-friendly’ means letting corporations socialize their costs while privatizing their profits. It means letting corporation literally write the laws that govern them. It means rolling back regulations and de-fanging oversight [….] What we are really talking about is corporatism.”

Time Warner Cable’s decision to spend $11 billion to broadcast Los Angeles Lakers and Dodgers games at an estimated cost of $50-60 a year per subscriber is the subject of a class action lawsuit from fed up customers.

The plaintiffs are upset cable subscribers across Southern California will have to cover the cost of the 20-year deal with no option to opt-out of the sports channels because they are bundled into the most popular cable package.

The suit, filed this week in Superior Court alleges at least 60 percent of subscribers have no interest in the sports programming, but will collectively cover $6.6 billion of the deal and never watch a single game.

Time Warner Cable is also accused of forcing AT&T U-verse, Charter Cable, Cox Cable, DirecTV and Verizon FiOS to sign restrictive contracts that compel the companies to include the sports channels on the basic lineup.

Ironically, Time Warner Cable itself regularly complains about the increasing cost of programming and contract terms that force it to bundle expensive sports channels inside the basic tier instead of offering customers optional, added-cost sports programming packages.

Both sports teams are also named as defendants in the suit because they were aware that all subscribers would face rate increases as a result of the deal.

“TWC’s bundling results in Defendants making huge profits, much of which is extracted from unwilling consumers who have no opportunity to delete unwanted telecasts,” the complaint states.

The suit claims there is no legitimate reason Time Warner Cable and the sports teams could not have offered the new networks only to customers that wished to pay for them. The suit wants the bundling of the sports networks stopped and customers given refunds for the higher television bills that resulted.

A California federal judge has rejected a class action case against Comcast for allegedly hiding modem fees as high as $15 a month when signing up new customers.

In 2010, Athanassios Diacakis made several calls to Comcast inquiring about cable service as a new customer. Diacakis claims several Comcast representatives offered a bundle of broadband, television and phone service for $99 a month. When he asked Comcast about any other charges, company representatives eventually admitted there was a $25 installation fee, but never mentioned any modem rental fees.

After Comcast installed service, Diacakis began receiving Comcast bills that included a previously undisclosed monthly modem fee of $10 and an extra “lease charge” of $5 a month associated with his broadband service.

Diacakis alleged in his complaint charging $15 a month for cable modem equipment was “outside and in excess of the specifically quoted bundled service” package he ordered.

As Below Your Means points out, renting a cable modem may be harmful to your wallet.

The plaintiff sought class certification to force Comcast to refund some or all the modem fees charged customers from 2007 to the present. His first effort failed in January 2012 on grounds of insufficient evidence. His amended complaint was rejected May 3 on similar grounds.

United States District Judge Saundra Armstrong ruled Diacakis failed on two separate occasions to produce convincing proof Comcast was actively deceiving customers with undisclosed modem fees.

Judge Armstrong wrote that Diacakis should have come to court with evidence beyond the spoken promises of a handful of Comcast salespeople the plaintiff identified only by their first names. She was swayed by Comcast’s arguments:

As Comcast correctly points out, the only evidence offered by Plaintiff regarding Comcast’s alleged practices consists of his limited personal experience in speaking with “Heather,” “Steve” and another unidentified Comcast representative in August 2010. There is no evidence that Comcast has employed any policy, custom or practice of intentionally failing to inform potential Triple Play subscribers that they will be subject to separate modem fees. To the contrary, the record presented thus far shows that Comcast trains and instructs its employees to inform customers and potential customers about all applicable charges, including those for leased equipment.

[…] As noted, he has made no showing that the representations or omissions during those calls were made pursuant to a standardized script or marketing practice. Indeed, there is no evidence that anyone other than Plaintiff was allegedly misinformed about the modem fees.

Armstrong also faulted Diacakis for not independently locating, scrutinizing, and verifying Comcast’s print or television advertising before he filed a lawsuit seeking to represent every customer paying them:

Comcast argues that Plaintiff is not an adequate representative because there is no evidence that he or anyone else was misled by its marketing and advertisements for the Triple Play package. Plaintiff does not dispute that he lacks such evidence. In addition, Plaintiff admitted during his deposition that he did not review any advertisements before contacting Comcast in August 2010 about bundling his services. Since Plaintiff could not have been harmed by any allegedly misleading advertising, he cannot adequately represent a class member who claims to have been harmed by Comcast’s alleged marketing program.

The case involves late fees charged to Frontier FiOS video customers in the state of Oregon.

Frontier Communications FiOS video customers that paid late fees for service in the state of Oregon may be entitled to a partial refund after the telecom company settled a class action case.

The settlement, announced today will cover both current and former customers.

Some key points:

• Customers that are potentially included in this class action settlement will receive a separate notice in the next 60 to 90 days;
• The separate notice will include additional information and instructions regarding steps they can take if they are eligible for a refund;
• A claims administrator will be identified and responsible for providing notices to former and existing customers;
• Customers must wait until they receive a notice regarding the settlement from the claims administrator which outlines additional steps that must be taken.

The company was accused of unjustly charging and collecting late fees for video customers whose payments were processed late as the company assumed control of the FiOS service from Verizon Communications.

An internal memo sent to Frontier employees and obtained by Stop the Cap! suggests the company is expecting calls from customers inquiring about the settlement. Other than telling employees to express empathy, company officials have asked customer service representatives to avoid speculating about the case and referring customers to forthcoming communications from the settlement administrator within the next two to three months.

The lawsuit only covers Oregon residents.

Cahill

A New York assemblyman is telling his upstate constituents to stop wasting money on Time Warner Cable’s monthly broadband modem equipment fee and buy your own device.

“I want consumers to know that they do not have to waste their hard-earned money on a product which was considered free for years,” said Assemblyman Kevin Cahill (D-Kingston) in a statement to members of his district. “Over the course of a year or two, depending on the model, the purchase of a new modem will pay for itself. Additionally, the models for purchase have more features than leased modems, like faster speeds and the capability to handle unlimited wireless devices.”

Time Warner expects less than three percent of its customers will take Cahill’s advice and avoid the $3.95 monthly fee, which opens a new, lucrative revenue stream for a cable operator that already enjoys up to 95 percent gross margin on its broadband service.

Cahill complained the 1996 U.S. Telecom Act prohibits the state’s Public Service Commission from intervening, but reminded customers there is a joint New York-New Jersey class action lawsuit against the cable operator over how the modem fee was implemented.

As of Jan. 14, Time Warner Cable has approved the following modems-for-purchase that can be activated for use with its broadband service, with our recommendations in red: