Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against Cablevision For Depriving People Of Fox On TV

from the oh-please dept

Thu, Oct 28th 2010 12:43pm — Mike Masnick

It seems the whole retransmission fight in NY between Cablevision and Fox gets sillier by the day. After Fox accused Cablevision of pointing people to websites with unauthorized streams of various sporting events, Cablevision announced that it would reimburse anyone who ordered Major League Baseball's internet playoff package to watch the World Series (legally) over the internet. Apparently, that's not enough for some people, who have filed a silly class action lawsuit against Cablevision for not discounting their bills during the Fox fight. They're claiming this was a breach of contract, because it represents a "material change" to the service. I can understand why people are annoyed, but this certainly feels like yet another class action lawsuit which is just about lawyers trying to squeeze money out of a company, rather than any serious public concern. Adding weight to that claim is the fact that they're asking for a whopping $450 million -- saying that the customers are seriously harmed by missing Fox's "distinctive viewpoint in the political speech arena... just days before a critical mid-term election." Oh and, of course, being deprived of The Simpsons, Glee, and football and baseball are seriously damaging to the psyche. Or something like that.

Update: Surprise, surprise. Now it's coming out that the lawyer behind the lawsuit has long term connections with News Corp. going all the way back to when Murdoch first set up the Fox Network.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: class action, fox, tv
Companies: cablevision, fox, news corp.

32 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mike C. (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 12:41pm

Whopping... not so much.
While the figure does seem high, it's not a random number pulled out of the air. They are actually asking for all subscribers to get a free month of service - an award worth roughly $450 million. Additionally, that number could go higher because basically, they're asking for free service for as long as Fox withholds their channels.

That being said, I think a lawsuit against either side (Fox or Cablevision) is foolish and a waste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John S, 28 Oct 2010 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re: Whopping... not so much.
  It works out to $150/subscriber (as an avg bill amount) over 3 million subscribers. Definitely not pulled out of mid-air.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheStupidOne, 28 Oct 2010 @ 12:56pm
  
  Re: Whopping... not so much.
  It is extremely high ... when you take the fact that FOX is one of perhaps 100 channels included in basic cable you should arrive at perhaps $4.5 million or a 1% discount. Maybe you could ask for as much as 25% because of the disruption to service, but not 100%
  
  Cablevision should just put an amplified digital receiver in their cable boxes and have it pickup the broadcast channels from the air. If a customer complains that they aren't getting the channel Cablevision should put an antenna up somewhere in or on the house (could they use the cable as an antenna?). That will be cheaper than paying the ridiculous fees that the broadcasters' demand.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - imbrucy (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 1:01pm
    
    Re: Re: Whopping... not so much.
    But FOX is not one channel. There are multiple channels that are being dropped. FOX News, FOX Sports (many, many different channels), and FX are all being dropped I believe. It isn't the entire lineup, but there are quite a few channels being dropped. It's especially obnoxious for locals where are the local sports teams are on the local FSN affiliate. (I'm from St. Louis and we are having a similar fight between Dish Network/Mediacom and Fox Sports Midwest that is blacking out all Blues games).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
alex, 28 Oct 2010 @ 12:44pm

Hahaha. That's a good one. Punish for depriving people of Fox? I think they should be REWARDED for keeping Fox away from the weak minded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2010 @ 12:55pm

???

Wasn't Fox that demanded Cablevision pay up or live without it?

If it ever comes out that this lawsuit was instigated by Fox that would not surprise me, maybe Cablevision should get those same people to also sue Fox for breach of contract.

In the end is all ridiculous but.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cc (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 1:26pm
  
  Re:
  "If it ever comes out that this lawsuit was instigated by Fox that would not surprise me, maybe Cablevision should get those same people to also sue Fox for breach of contract."
  
  This.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ron, 28 Oct 2010 @ 5:12pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Hey dumb ass, the contract must be up if they are renegotiating the price. So Fox is not in breach of a contract.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 29 Oct 2010 @ 2:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So what, when that did stop a good old lawsuit?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DS, 28 Oct 2010 @ 2:30pm
  
  Re:
  I think they have things backwards.
  
  I say we all sue for forcing cable companies to pay to rebroadcast FREE OVER THE AIR content.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 2:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    As was pointed out, FOX has more than the free OTA channel, actually quite a bit more.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frankz (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 1:46pm

As usually, with any multi million dollar class action lawsuit, it's probably not "some people" filing the suit. It's "some lawyers" filing suit, who then get some people to add their name to it, as if it was on their behalf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nasch (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 2:13pm

What is so silly?
What's so silly about demanding that a company actually deliver the services it's agreed to? And if they refuse to, demanding a partial refund? If they refuse that, it's not like there's competition to turn to. The only options are nothing, lawsuit, or bend over. I certainly don't mind that some people are unwilling to bend over. Yes, I know the parties won't get much out of it and it will be mostly for the lawyers, but maybe other cable providers will take note.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Whitetail, 28 Oct 2010 @ 3:54pm
  
  Re: What is so silly?
  You seem to not understand the situation here.
  
  Rebroadcast rights are a contractual corcern. Each cable company has a signed contract with each of the channels it carries. These contracts have built-in cost adjustments that allow for the broadcasters to offset tech/marketing/etc costs.
  
  What these companies like FOX and viacom are doing is extorting cable companies to get much higher retransmit rate hikes than the contract allows for. (Example, the TWC: Viacom fight was TWC agreed to 12% increase, viacom wanted 42%) They extort the cable industry by saying "Give us x percentage more, or we will pull our channels" Then to pressure those companies, FOX and others broadcast propaganda that the cable companies are willfully dropping ther content. When those companies cave in, they pass those costs straight on to the consumer.
  
  This is extortion, and the FCC/Government is starting to take a good look at the practice. God I hope they stop this shit in it's tracks.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 4:19pm
    
    Re: Re: What is so silly?
    I'm fully aware of what's happening.
    
    This is extortion, and the FCC/Government is starting to take a good look at the practice. God I hope they stop this shit in it's tracks.
    
    In this case, would strong competition in the cable market even solve it? I'm not sure that it would, and if not, what would the FCC be able to do? Setting prices is generally bad. I don't know, I'm just not seeing a solution really.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Killer_Tofu (profile), 29 Oct 2010 @ 6:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re: What is so silly?
      The solution is to do exactly what Cablevision has done for now. Just stop carrying the stations. That sends a pretty clear signal to Fox and them that what they want is too damn high.
      The Cable co.s should not be punished for standing up against extortion.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shawn (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 2:16pm

Give In
Don't these people understand that if Cablevision gives into whatever high price Fox demands that their cable bill in turn goes higher? Why sue cablevision for fighting for a fair rate to help their customers? Am I missing something here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 2:22pm
  
  Re: Give In
  "Am I missing something here?"
  
  Yes, people are stupid and easily led astray by the great Satan that is lawyer.
  
  That is all....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Magly (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 2:22pm
  
  Re: Give In
  People have all kinds of principals until they can't do something they really want.
  
  Though I find it hard to believe that this came up on it's own without some prodding by a party that stands to profit either way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2010 @ 2:37pm

it would be about time the big corporations started taking responsibility for there actions.

if ppl payed for a service that CV or any other company for that matter did not provide then THEY SHOULD BE LIABLE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 28 Oct 2010 @ 3:06pm

I'm not exactly in favor of a lawsuit against Cablevision and I'd take their side over Fox's, however...

Fox is a major network. It makes up 20% of the Network coverage, not to mention all the various other channels that Fox provides. If Cablevision is now providing a reduced service, they should reduce the bill by an appropriate amount.

After all, if they were adding a bunch of channels, they'd expect you to pay more, so with a reduction in channels, shouldn't you pay less?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 3:37pm

Updated..
Added an update, as it's now been pointed out that the lawyer behind this has long term connections to News Corp./Fox/Rupert Murdoch...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2010 @ 3:46pm
  
  Re: Updated..
  Color me unsurprised.
  
  The term "distinctive viewpoint in the political speech arena..." was a dead giveaway.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2010 @ 5:09pm

This seems like a Tea Party Tactic
But Fox wouldn't be behind that. They're too classy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daemon_ZOGG (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 5:51pm

"...Lawsuit Filed Against Cablevision For Depriving People Of Fox.."
Depriving people of ALL fox network content is ALWAYS a good thing. SERIOUSLY! Their news is nothing but over-hyped, over-fluffed B.S. While their daily dead-head programming is turning people into brainless, gullible twits.
};P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skippy T. Mut, 28 Oct 2010 @ 6:31pm

umm...
Doesn't Fox broadcast over the air still?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Oct 2010 @ 7:42pm
  
  Re: umm...
  Maybe this is a stupid question, but how can they sue for the loss of Fox News when it's still on CV?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 28 Oct 2010 @ 8:22pm
  
  Re: umm...
  Yes, they do, and yet...
  
  Comment by imbrucy, Oct 28th, 2010 @ 1:01pm
  
  Comment by Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased), Oct 28th, 2010 @ 2:35pm
  
  Comment by Rekrul, Oct 28th, 2010 @ 3:06pm
  
  You're not even the first person who's been told that it's already been mentioned that other stations are involved.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 29 Oct 2010 @ 5:11am

Blocking access to News Corp products should be considered a public service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
frustratedViewer (profile), 29 Oct 2010 @ 1:06pm

Cablevision should call for Boycott
Cablevision should call on all cable and dish tv service providers to initiate a nationwide boycott on all Newscorp programming, [specifically ALL FOX stations and programs and MY networks as well].
Then they should notify all the advertisers that paid millions of dollars to Newscorp to have their commercials aired are not reaching the total potential customer market that they contracted for. Perhaps those advertisers will apply pressure on Newscorp, forcing them to reconsider their current action against cablevision,and the cable/dish provider industry in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P K, 30 Oct 2010 @ 12:54pm

The Real Issue
How about cutting to the chase and just getting down to the real problem. Why does the NFL, MLB, and all of the other fat cats get away with charging so much to broadcast their products, thus causing Fox to raise their prices and Cablevision to balk?

News Flash: Because we're the idiots who fund it!

If people would ever put their money where their mouths are, they'd stop attending and watching sporting events until these fat cats learn to deal with a smaller pie. The pie is too big. Lower salaries, lower prices...simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Angelo, 16 Jun 2016 @ 8:17pm

There Should Be A Class Action Against News12/Optimum
News12 is denying access to its news reports unless we purchase more services from Optimum. Their sign-on page tells us that Optimum customers can sign in, but not if we only use one service, as I do with Optimum Online. This is not specified on their sign-on page, it only states "Optimum Customers", which I am. My current Optimum ID and password are useless in signing in, and this whole deal just wreaks of extortion. When I took my FCC License Test, the first paragraph in the book states that "a station's primary responsibility is to the community". This is no longer the case with News12, and a complaint to the FCC has fallen upon deaf ears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]