Tillage et al v. Comcast Corporation et al

Filing 127

Order by Judge Vince Chhabria denying 115 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.(vclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/30/2020)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES TILLAGE, et al.,

Case No. 17-cv-06477-VC

Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS
Re: Dkt. No. 115

Tillage and his co-plaintiffs signed up for one- or two-year fixed-price contracts for cable
service from Comcast. They allege that Comcast charged them fees that were concealed at the
time they signed up, and then increased those fees in violation of the fixed-price contract. Based
on this conduct, the plaintiffs assert claims under California’s false advertising law and related
consumer protection laws. Comcast has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, contending
that the claims are preempted by federal law. They are not preempted, and it’s not a close
question.
The Cable Act and its regulations preempt state or local laws that restrict rates or prohibit
the types of alterations to cable packages that are blessed by the FCC, but they do not permit
cable companies to lie about the rates they charge, and they do not shield those companies from
generally applicable police power regulations designed to prevent consumer deception. 47
U.S.C. § 556(a), (c); see Total TV v. Palmer Communications, Inc., 69 F.3d 298, 302–03 (9th
Cir. 1995); Allarcom Pay Television v. General Instrument, 69 F.3d 381, 386 (9th Cir. 1995);
Cable Television Association of New York v. Finneran, 954 F.2d 91, 101–02 (2d Cir. 1992);
Time Warner Cable v. Doyle, 66 F.3d 867, 881–82 (7th Cir. 1995); Fischer v. Time Warner

Cable Inc., 234 Cal. App. 4th 784, 796 (Cal. App. 2015). The claims asserted by the plaintiffs do
not seek to prevent Comcast from charging any particular rate or altering any cable package, and
a judgment for the plaintiffs could not realistically have that practical effect. Nor would the
plaintiffs’ claims, if successful, prevent Comcast from passing external costs on to customers as
authorized by the FCC. Rather, this lawsuit seeks to prevent Comcast from making
misrepresentations about the rates and fees it charges, and to redress the financial harm the
alleged false advertising caused for members of the class. Perhaps the plaintiffs will, in their
zeal, offer up some ill-fitted restitution model or proposed injunction that would indeed interfere
with Comcast’s ability to charge particular rates or to pass on external costs to customers as
permitted by the FCC. If that happens, it can be addressed. But there is no reason to assume it
will happen, because such relief is not necessary to vindicate the plaintiffs’ claims about
Comcast’s alleged misrepresentations to consumers. Thus, Comcast’s current request to enter
judgment in its favor on the grounds that these claims are facially preempted is baseless. The
motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 30, 2020
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2