Supreme Court rules for Comcast in class action

Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:26pm EDT

The offices and studios of Comcast Entertainment Group which operates E! Entertainment Television, the Style Network and G4 network is pictured in Los Angeles in this November 12, 2009, file photo. REUTERS/Fred Prouser/Files

The offices and studios of Comcast Entertainment Group which operates E! Entertainment Television, the Style Network and G4 network is pictured in Los Angeles in this November 12, 2009, file photo.

Credit: Reuters/Fred Prouser/Files

Related Topics

(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of Comcast Corp in an antitrust case over how much it charged cable TV subscribers, further curtailing the ability of people to pursue class action lawsuits.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said a group of cable TV subscribers in the Philadelphia area who accused Comcast of overcharging them as part of an effort to monopolize the market could not sue as a group.

"The permutations involving four theories of liability and 2 million subscribers located in 16 counties are nearly endless," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.

Comcast's subscribers fell "far short of establishing that damages are capable of measurement on a classwide basis," he continued. "There is no question that the model failed to measure damages resulting from the particular antitrust injury on which (Comcast's) liability in this action is premised."

Wednesday's decision came in one of several class action cases being addressed this term by a court whose recent decision-making is often considered friendly to businesses and unfriendly to consumers.

They follow a landmark 2011 decision in Wal-Mart Stores Inc v. Dukes where the court threw out a giant employment discrimination lawsuit because the female plaintiffs did not have enough in common to sue together.

Wednesday's vote breakdown was a familiar one, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joining Scalia's opinion.

The more liberal justices dissented, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer penning an unusual joint dissent, joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Comcast did not immediately comment, saying its lawyers were reviewing the decision. Barry Barnett, a lawyer for the subscribers, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

PRECEDENTS IGNORED

While not as sweeping as the Wal-Mart ruling, the Comcast decision addressed a key issue in class action litigation: what kind of evidence must be presented in the early stages of a case before a judge can allow a class action to go forward.

Led by Caroline Behrend, subscribers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware in an $875 million lawsuit dating from 2003 accused the largest cable TV company of overcharges through its effort to monopolize the Philadelphia area market.

The subscribers said that by buying rivals or swapping coverage areas, Philadelphia-based Comcast was able to triple its market share, which peaked at 77.8 percent in 2002.

Comcast said the case was too big, covering subscribers in 649 franchise areas facing different competitive conditions.

In August 2011, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said a trial judge could decide the subscribers had a common methodology to justify awarding damages to a class.

But in reversing that ruling, Scalia said that in focusing on damages, the 3rd Circuit failed to do what Supreme Court precedents require: examine whether "common questions" among class members predominate over individual questions.

"By refusing to entertain arguments against (subscribers') damages model that bore on the propriety of class certification, simply because those arguments would also be pertinent to the merits determination, the Court of Appeals ran afoul of our precedents requiring precisely that inquiry," Scalia wrote.

Ginsburg and Breyer said they would have dismissed the appeal, saying the court erred in reformulating the case to focus on issues that Comcast had not pressed in lower courts and which the subscribers did not have a fair chance to address.

The dissent also said the court erred in overturning factual findings made by two lower courts over whether the subscribers' damages model was legitimate.

In late morning trading, Comcast shares rose 0.1 percent to $41.50 on Nasdaq.

The case is Comcast Corp et al v. Behrend et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-864.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York and Lawrence Hurley in Washington; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (8)
Thomas269 wrote:
Comcast has all that unprotected infrastructure out there. I hope customers do not take the law into their own hands. It could make maintenance nearly impossible.

Mar 27, 2013 10:59am EDT  --  Report as abuse
LandonD wrote:
This is no surprise. These are the same “justices” that made Citizens United a reality.

Mar 27, 2013 11:06am EDT  --  Report as abuse
DzrBig wrote:
You must be an employee. Therefore not playing the jack my price up game. People we are subjected to this only because we will not give up / turn off the idiot box or cell phones. Conversation is fast becoming a lost art.

Mar 27, 2013 11:40am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.