Judge Sides With Programmers—For Now—In A La Carte Case
U.S. District Court Judge Gives Consumers 11 Days To Amend Their Lawsuit
By Linda Haugsted -- Multichannel News, 3/10/2008 11:23:00 AM
A consumer lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles challenging the lack of availability of a la carte pay TV programming, is still alive but only if the plaintiffs' attorneys can convince a federal court judge that the actions of major media companies offering programming only in packages violates anti-trust laws.
U.S. District Court Judge Christina A. Snyder ruled on behalf of cable, satellite and programming providers on their motion to dismiss a potential class action suit, but gave opponents 11 days to amend their lawsuit against the providers.
The lawsuit challenging programming packages was filed in federal court in Los Angeles Dec. 3 alleging that program packaging rises to level of an anti-trust violation.
Vertically integrated programming providers compel cable and satellite distributors to buy all of a seller's channels, then those distributors turn around and sell the bundles to consumers.
Cable operators and programmers’ chief defense is that competition among programmers for distribution, as well as competition among distributors for paying subscribers, ensures that no one is required by law to sell channels a la carte just because they have the means to do so.
“Antitrust law does not give buyers the right to demand that multi-product sellers make their wares available in every possible combination,” Viacom said in a Dec. 21 court brief asking for the case to be dismissed.
However, consumers pay more than they have to for programming because they buy channels they are not interested in to get the channels they really want, the suit asserts.
Consumers served by Comcast Corp. Cox Communications Inc., Time Warner Cable, Charter Communications Inc., Cablevision Systems Corp. DirecTV and Dish Network sued those providers, as well as programming producers NBC Universal Inc., Viacom Inc., the Walt Disney Co. and Fox Entertainment Group Inc.
On March 10, the judge indicated the suit did not "allege with sufficient clarity" the damage done to consumers that would meet the definition of an anti-trust violation. The attorneys for the consumers have until March 21 to file an amended complaint in order to convince the judge there is an anti-trust violation that can be argued.
-
Most customers don't realize that we are able to keep the price of the bundle of channels less expensive than if they start choosing individual channels there would be a great possibility of their bill going to an outrageous price. For instance, look at the cost of premiums or vod content like wwe 24/7 or Howard Stern.
Dawn Blankenship - 3/12/2008 12:53:00 PM EDT
VIEW ALL GALLERIES
