Comcast can’t stop surcharge class-action suit from moving forward

Comcast Center headquarters in Philadelphia. Image: Comcast
The suit claims Comcast advertised a price for services, then jacked that price up with surcharges for broadcast TV and regional sports networks.

A federal judge has denied Comcast’s motion to dismiss a class-action suit alleging the cable operator added pay-TV surcharges. 

The suit, filed in October of last year in a Northern California U.S. District Court, accuses Comcast of breach of contract, claiming the operator is advertising a price for services, then jacking that price up with surcharges for broadcast TV and regional sports networks.

“It is plausible to infer from the complaint that, by clicking ‘Submit Your Order,’ [plaintiffs] Adkins and Robertson agreed to pay Comcast’s advertised prices, plus taxes and government-related fees, in exchange for the services Comcast offered them,” Judge Vince Chhabria said, in a ruling obtained by Ars Technica

Sponsored by Dell Technologies

Whitepaper: How to Elevate Your Content Delivery Workflows With Dell EMC PowerScale

Learn how Dell EMC PowerScale helps meet surging viewer demand while reducing costs with a single centralized platform for the ingest, processing, and delivery of the content your viewers love.

RELATED: Comcast faces class-action suit over broadcast and RSN add-on fees

“It is also plausible to infer from the complaint that Comcast breached its agreements with the plaintiffs when it sent them bills charging them broadcast TV and/or regional sports fees (alleged to be neither taxes nor government-related fees) in excess of the agreed-upon price, and when it subsequently sought to raise the amount of the fees,” the judge added. 

According to the complaint, Comcast in 2015 sought to raise the broadcast surcharge from $1.50 to $6.50, and the regional sports fee from $1 to $4.50.

Chhabria also disagreed with Comcast’s claim that customers agreed to the surcharges in their subscriber agreement, noting that the language pertains to “permitted fees” and not specifically to surcharges. 

The judge did trim some of the complaint, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for “breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”

Suggested Articles

WarnerMedia scored a key HBO Max distribution deal with Comcast just as it launched in May. Nearly six months later, there still isn’t an app.

Peacock, NBCUniversal’s recently launched streaming video service, is rolling out 20% discounts on annual Premium subscriptions for Black Friday.

How can we defend ourselves? Mostly, it’s a matter of common sense.