Cox Communications Inc. Class Action

In pursuing an illegal tying and antitrust suit against Cox Communications, the Berniard Law Firm paved the away for a number of attorneys to join suit in the weeks after and build a full class action against the communications giant. The basis of the suit relies upon the set-top box required by Cox for premium cable services. This box is only for rent, not for purchase, and is unfairly tied to the cable service Cox provides. As such, our firm has sought to return a semblance of fairness to the cable industry and is pursuing this case with determination.

In seeking justice on behalf of cable box renters the Berniard Law firm has joined with many other law firms and has been pursuing these allegations since the original filing in 2009. Since that date the Berniard Law Firm has spent thousands of hours litigating the case, reviewing documents and preparing for trial. In preparing for the original certification of this case the Berniard law firm sought to certify a class action with the following definition:

Class Definition. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the following class of similarly situated persons (the “Class”), including subclass, of which Plaintiff is a member:

Persons throughout the United States who reside in geographic areas where Cox has a more that 50% share of the digital cable television market, who subscribe to Cox’s digital cable television service during the applicable statute of limitations period(s) and who were required to and did pay a monthly fee to Cox for the use of a set-top box.

Louisiana Subclass

Persons throughout the State of Louisiana who reside in geographic areas where Cox has a more that 50% share of the digital cable television market, who subscribe to Cox’s digital cable television service during the applicable statute of limitations period(s), and who were required to and did pay a monthly fee to Cox for the use of a set-top box.

Further, our law firm believed the following were issues common to the class:

Commonality. There are questions of law or fact common to the Class including but not limited to the following:

Whether Defendant’s acts and omissions alleged herein constitute a violation of Section 1 the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1;

Whether Defendant’s acts and omissions alleged herein constitute a violation of Section 2 the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1;

Whether Defendant’s acts and omissions alleged herein constitute a violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law sections 51:1401 et. seq.;

Whether a declaratory judgment providing that Defendant violated the above-referenced law is appropriate;

Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Class have sustained damages and, if so, what is the proper measure of those damages; and

Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Class are entitled to the relief sought, including injunctive relief and attorney’s fees.

In continuing this litigation the Berniard Law Firm hopes to receive damages for all the persons who have been forced to rent set top boxes. Our law firm will continue the fight. Contact our office for an update on the case.