Antitrust and Consumer Protection
Competition: Spring 2017, Vol 26, No. 1
Content
- Antitrust, Ucl and Privacy Section Executive Committee 2016-2017
- Assessing Damages In Privacy Cases: a Panel Discussion With Andrew Serwin, Jay Edelson and Garrett Glasgow
- Below-cost Pricing: Recent Defense-friendly Decisions
- California Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Update: Procedural Law
- California Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Update: Substantive Law
- Chair's Column
- Criminal Antitrust Enforcement During the Obama Administration
- Editor's Note
- Golden State Institute's 26th Anniversary Edition
- Keynote Address: a Conversation With California Supreme Court Justice Carol a. Corrigan
- Making the Intangible Concrete: Litigating Intangible Privacy Harms In a Post-spokeo World
- Managing Antitrust and Complex Business Trials: a Discussion With Three Federal District Judges
- Roundup of 2016 Federal Antitrust and Privacy Court Decisions
- The Critical Importance—or Complete Irrelevance—of Class Ascertainability In the Class Certification Decision, and the Unacceptable Circuit Split
- United States Vab Electroluxand General Electric Company: a Panel Discussion With Trial Counsel
- In re: Cox Enterprises, Inc. Set-top Cable Television Box Antirust Litigation: a Panel Discussion With Trial Counsel
IN RE: COX ENTERPRISES, INC. SET-TOP CABLE TELEVISION BOX ANTIRUST LITIGATION: A PANEL DISCUSSION WITH TRIAL COUNSEL
Moderated by Jill M. Manning1
In 2009, subscribers of Cox’s cable service sued the company for allegedly tying the service to its box rentals. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the cases and transferred them to the Western District of Oklahoma. Following the district court’s ruling that the case could not proceed as a class action, the plaintiffs re-filed similar suits around the country and sought to certify classes for isolated geographic regions. The cases alleged violations of the Sherman Act and state antitrust and unfair competition laws.
U.S. District Court Judge Robin Cauthron denied Cox’s motion to dismiss the suit and rejected Cox’s argument that the plaintiffs had failed to present facts demonstrating the existence of a properly defined geographic market. About a year later, the judge certified a class for certain of Cox’s premium cable subscribers in the Oklahoma City market. Cox moved to compel arbitration. The district court denied the motion on the grounds that Cox had waived its right to arbitration by extensively participating in the litigation. The case proceeded to trial.
After a nine-day jury trial, the Oklahoma federal judge entered a verdict for plaintiffs, finding that Cox had violated antitrust law by tying premium cable services to set-top box rentals and awarded $6.31 million in damages that the plaintiffs believe could be trebled under antitrust law.