A group of Netflix investors have filed suit against the streaming company in a San Francisco federal court, alleging that from October to April, Netflix failed to disclose "adverse material facts" about its true growth prospects. 

The class-action complaint names Co-CEOs Reed Hastings and Ted Sarandos, as well as Chief Financial Officer Spencer Neumann. 

Netflix stock declined 22% in January when the company revealed that it missed subscriber growth guidance during the fourth quarter of last year. And the stock cratered 35% last month, when Netflix conceded that it not only missed guidance on customer growth in Q1, it actually lost 200,000 paid users.

“Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects,” read the suit, which was obtained by Deadline. 

Specifically, the suit said Netflix didn't properly disclose that it was losing revenue because of password-sharing, a point of emphasis during Netflix's Q1 earnings report. 

In its quarterly letter to shareholders published April 19, Netflix management listed a host of reasons as to why its subscribers and revenue have decelerated, among them: slowing distribution of connected TV devices due to supply chain issues; Netflix's sudden withdraw from Russia, leaving behind 700,000 subscribers; increased SVOD competition; and yes, password sharing. 

Did Netflix realize the collective impact of all of these factors prior to disclosing them to investors in January and April? As always in investor class-action complaints, that will be difficult to prove. ■

Disney has fired back--at least verbally!--at a lawsuit filed against it by actress Scarlett Johansson, claiming the Black Widow star is showing "callous disregard" for the impact of the pandemic on the film industry. 

“There is no merit whatsoever to this filing," Disney said in a statement, released Thursday, shortly after Johansson's suit was made public.  

"The lawsuit is especially sad and distressing in its callous disregard for the horrific and prolonged global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Disney has fully complied with Ms. Johansson’s contract and furthermore, the release of Black Widow on Disney Plus with Premier Access has significantly enhanced her ability to earn additional compensation on top of the $20M she has received to date," Disney added. 

Volleying a return, Johansson's agent, Bryan Lourd, said that Disney has "shamelessly and falsely accused Ms. Johansson of being insensitive to the global COVID pandemic, in an attempt to make her appear to be someone they and I know she isn’t."

Also read: ScarJo’s ‘Black Widow’ Lawsuit Against Disney Catches Pandemic Hollywood In Its Web

Johansson is suing Disney, claiming its decision to release Black Widow simultaneously as premium $30 extra on streaming service Disney Plus and in theaters harmed the performance of the theatrical release window, breaching a contract that was based on agreed-upon traditional benchmarks. 

Johansson said the decision could end up costing her as much as $50 million. 

So, Scarlett Johansson sez she wuz robbed when Disney debuted her Marvel movie on Disney Plus the same day that Black Widow unspooled in 4,160 theaters around the country.

“Disney intentionally induced Marvel’s breach of the agreement, without justification, in order to prevent Ms. Johansson from realizing the full benefit of her bargain with Marvel,” reads the lawsuit just filed by ScarJo’s lawyers. 

The suit’s basic contention is that Johansson signed a deal way back when, based on her making a lot of money from a lengthy theatrical release, much the way Marvel stars have been doing for the past decade. That deal was created in a different era of moviemaking, signed well before the pandemic, and certainly before Disney came up with its Premier Access program to extract additional cash from home releases on Disney Plus, at a time when many theaters were closed.

Never mind that, though. The spider wants her full helping of the juice she expected to get from a standalone Marvel movie. 

That it’s come to this isn’t wholly surprising, but also speaks to the radical rewriting of business structures, talent contracts, success metrics and much else that’s been underway since the pandemic tossed out most of Hollywood’s formerly eternal verities.

Expect more suits, and more bruised feelings, as the industry tries to right-size compensation packages amid yet another pandemic surge, broad adoption of streaming services, and still more questions about the health of the movie theater business. 

That this latest Infinity War started with a Marvel movie is kind of perfect, from a screenwriting standpoint at least. 

Black Widow opened promisingly on July 9, grossing a solid $80.3 million domestically in its first weekend in theaters. And the home release did so well that Disney put out a news release crowing about “more than $60 million” from Premier Access purchases. At $30 a pop, that’s 2 million households. 

Then came week two, when Black Widow got all tangled up. Theatrical grosses plunged two-thirds, and The National Association of Theater Owners (NATO) issued a release blaming Premier Access for the disappointing second week (the film has now grossed $318 million worldwide).

That’s a release (and a potential set of expert witnesses) that ScarJo’s lawyers surely read. NATO also ran ads during the Olympics proclaiming, “the big screen is back at your local theater.” That the Olympics and theater-going are both once again getting hammered by COVID-19 didn’t seem to diminish the vehemence of NATO’s ad. 

Should it ever get to trial, there will be plenty of what-if questions to hash over, to wit: 

> Did a simultaneous release really cannibalize theater going? Or given the resurgent pandemic, were lots of folks likely to stay home anyway, rather than spend two hours watching explosions in a dark room with a bunch of strangers of uncertain health status?

> Was the movie any good? Reviews were strong (81% Rotten Tomatoes critics, 92% audience members), but then the question becomes was the story line compelling enough to get people out of their houses and into theaters? After all, SPOILER ALERT, ScarJo’s character is on a farewell tour, handing the narrative reins over to Florence Pugh, as the MCU moves on without Black Widow or a bunch of other dead characters from the last story cycle. 

> Are people getting tired of Marvel movies in general? With the lockdown, those 100-million-plus Disney Plus subscribers had plenty of time to watch and rewatch the entire story cycle. Maybe folks are getting a little tired of this stuff? The possibility of a declining franchise is, of course, the stuff of nightmares for Bob Chapek and Kevin Feige. Good news: we don’t have to wait long for another Marvel movie to test the hypothesis. Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings debuts Labor Day Weekend, in theaters only. Instant test case for the lawyers

> Was the film ever going to have a long run in theaters? All the studios have now set up much shorter theatrical windows, even for their theater-only movies, as they hurry to get their movies onto their much more lucrative streaming services. And they’re making more and more movies that will never go to theaters, like the 10 streaming-only features next year that WarnerMedia announced last week. Intriguingly, that includes potential awards contenders, which will get only a limited, Oscar-qualifying run in theaters. 

Should it come to actual trial, all these questions and more will be kicked around. It’s hardly the first time a creative talent has sued a studio. Such battles seem to break out whenever the business evolves into new money-making opportunities, but prefers to pay talent under older, less lucrative deal structures. 

I’ve long joked that America’s greatest fiction writers are Hollywood accountants, who can mystifyingly create an ever-receding profit horizon for any net-profit participants. It’s a gift, if rather evil, but also one long celebrated in Hollywood executive suites. 

What’s likely to unfold in coming months, however, won’t be a trial (especially given the condition of Los Angeles County’s overburdened court system, which can take years to move through). 

It will be part of a broader full-employment program for lawyers, however .Talent in plenty of projects are negotiate for a piece of the new pie amid the studios’ frustrating, increasingly problematic lack of transparency about the revenues they’re generating there. At some point, the guilds will need to force better visibility on project success, so top-line talent knows what they actually should be making.. 

For now, consider this lawsuit Johansson’s effort to get a quick shot of cash she anticipated back in 2018 or 2019 that she would get from a long, lucrative run in theaters. 

What will make this and other cases all go away is a hefty sprinkling of cash over the heads of disappointed profit participants, much as WarnerMedia had to do last winter after its startling announcement to put its whole 2021 slate on day-and-date HBO Max release. That decision bruised a lot of sensitive creative egos (and wallets), but also recognized the reality of what has indeed come since with the pandemic.

So consider Johansson’s lawsuit, and similar lawyer-filled conversations in recent months, the shakeout cruise on our way to our streaming future. 

WWE chairman and CEO and XFL founder Vince McMahon claims that former XFL CEO Oliver Luck is "stonewalling" in his wrongful termination suit against the league founder by refusing to answer a sheaf of questions regarding his use of a company iPhone, which McMahon and his lawyers claim prove the former league chief was slacking off on the job.

Luck, a former NCAA and NFL executive, was hired as CEO of the XFL, McMahon’s second attempt at creating a rival to the National Football League, in 2018. The league launched on Feb. 8, 2020  but canceled its season on March 12 of that year because of the pandemic. 

The XFL fired Luck on April 9, 2020, a day before the rest of the league's employees were let go, for what they said was cause, claiming Luck’s gross negligence and a willful disregard of the lawful instructions of Mr. McMahon. On April 13, 2020 the XFL filed for bankruptcy protection. Luck sued Alpha Entertainment, the vehicle that officially owned the XFL, and McMahon, who had personally guaranteed his compensation, in federal court in Connecticut on April 16, 2020. 

Last August, the XFL was purchased by a group including former wrestler and current movie star Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, his ex-wife Dany Garcia and RedBird Capital for about $15 million. 

McMahon countersued Luck in January, and in a filing with the court on July 14, claimed that Luck has refused to answer questions related to his use of a company-issued cell phone. That phone is crucial for two reasons: McMahon claims that Luck used the phone for personal use, a violation of company policy, and it also contains text messages and emails that the WWE chief says proves that Luck was not adequately performing his job. 

McMahon's attorneys submitted a 50-page affidavit of questions relating to the cell phone use to the court, primarily asking the former CEO to confirm which emails and texts were sent on every day between March 13 and April 9. According to McMahon's attorneys, Luck's responses have been “evasive.”

Luck apparently has refused to voice his "contentions" regarding each email and text, which McMahon's attorneys believe would help the court differentiate between ones he claims reflect his work for the league and those that do not. 

In the July 14 filing, McMahon and Alpha attorneys allege that by responding to its requests with "baseless objections and evasive responses," Luck is "stonewalling" its efforts to discover what constitutes XFL-related work he has done and to "narrow the scope of disputed issues related to those contentions."

Luck’s attorneys have said many of the questions are burdensome, oppressive and overly broad, according to court filings. In several cases they objected to questions asking whether Luck had sent emails on certain dates because they don’t include about 95 emails sent to or from him that were excluded by McMahon and Alpha Entertainment on grounds of attorney/client privilege. 

McMahon's and Alpha's attorneys say Luck's actions are an attempt to "hide the ball on his position as to the evidence of his XFL and non-XFL work."

The July 14 dispute is just the latest in what has been a series of discovery disputes between the parties. In June, Luck asked to depose the partner in the law firm that headed the investigation that led to his firing. Alpha and McMahon have opposed that motion, which is still pending before the court.

Former Fox News Channel and CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry has filed suit against CNN and NPR, as well as a number of journalists employed by each, alleging defamation and invasion of privacy.

The suit followed one filed earlier last week by Henry against Fox News and its CEO, Suzanne Scott, alleging defamation.

Fox News fired Ed Henry in June 2020 after it received a complaint from a former employee involving "willful sexual misconduct in the workplace" in the past. They did not say what that misconduct was. Henry has said the allegations were false and he was "blindsided" by the firing.

Henry conceded that he had a sexual relationship with his accuser, Jennifer Eckhart, also a Fox employee (Fox Business Network), but that it was consensual. Eckhart sued Henry alleging rape.

Also Read: Ex-News Corp. Exec Padden: Fox News Is Damaging America

In the suit, Henry alleges NPR and CNN made false or misleading statements about him.

"NPR stands behind David Folkenflik’s reporting and will vigorously defend it against this meritless claim," said Isabel Lara, NPR executive director of media relations. "Millions of Americans trust NPR to provide accurate information about the world and their communities every day; we take this responsibility very seriously."

Dominion Voting Systems has filed a $1.6 billion lawsuit against Fox News, claiming the cable news network defamed it when it reported that the tech company was behind alleged and unsubstantiated voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

Earlier, the Ontario, Canada-based Dominion filed suits against former president Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, as well as another Trump-allied attorney, Sidney Powell, and Trump supporter and MyPillow entrepreneur Mike Lindell, all for tying Dominion’s name to bogus allegations of election fraud on Fox News air time. 

Another voting tech company, SmartMatic, filed suit against Fox News, as well as some of its current and former on-air performers, in early February. At the time, Fox stepped away from one of its highest rated on-air personalities, and one of the biggest perpetrators of the election fraud myth, Lou Dobbs, although it didn’t tie Dobbs’ departure to any of the legal action.

Read Also: Fox News Remains 'Cable Superpower' with Republicans

“The truth matters. Lies have consequences,” the Dominion lawsuit said. “Fox sold a false story of election fraud in order to serve its own commercial purposes, severely injuring Dominion in the process. If this case does not rise to the level of defamation by a broadcaster, then nothing does.”

Before Dominion filed its lawsuit Friday, Fox News had already filed four motions to dismiss other legal actions against its coverage.

“Fox News Media is proud of our 2020 election coverage, which stands in the highest tradition of American journalism, and we will vigorously defend against this baseless lawsuit in court,” the company said in a statement provided to Associated Press.

Read Also: Fox Hit With $2.7 Billion Defamation Suit

Former Attorney General William Barr, a Trump appointee, investigated the former president’s claims of rampant fraud in the November 2020 election and found no evidence to support them. Likewise, Republican state officials for disputed key battleground states, Arizona and Georgia, found no evidence suggesting the election was rigged. And myriad legal challenges to the election filed by the Trump Administration and its allies were tossed — the U.S Supreme Court notably dismissed two of them. 

Still, a number of Fox News personalities continued to report the false claim of rampant voter fraud as fact, making false accusations about Dominion in the process. Dominion said in its suit that it tried on numerous occasions to dispute the claims but was rebuffed by Fox News. 

Read Also: Fox Cancels Lou Dobbs

Dominion said its principals and employees were threatened and harassed by Trump supporters. 

According to the  Associated Press, one employee, Eric Coomer, said he had to go into hiding over death threats tied to the false claims. Coomer has filed his own lawsuits against the Trump campaign, as well as conservative media outlets Newsmax and One America News Network.

Fox News Media’s Maria Bartiromo and Judge Jeanine Pirro and former host Lou Dobbs have all filed motions to dismiss the Smartmatic defamation suit against them.

FNM has already filed a similar motion.

"Smartmatic’s headline-seeking, multi-billion-dollar lawsuit thus should be seen—and rejected—for what it is: an unconstitutional attempt by a money-losing company (Smartmatic reported $17 million in losses on just $144 million in revenue in 2019) to try to refill its coffers at the expense of our constitutional traditions," said Fox of the suit.

“Not only has Smartmatic failed to identify anything that could form the basis of a defamation (or disparagement) claim against Bartiromo; it has failed even to adequately plead actual malice," her motion argues, adding: “Maria Bartiromo did her job: she covered the unquestionably newsworthy story” which is fully protected by the First Amendment as it “entitles journalists like Bartiromo to interview people on both sides of a heated and actively litigated controversy (one or the other of which is shading the truth—if not both), so that objectively newsworthy claims can be tested in the crucible of robust debate.”

"The Smartmatic lawsuit should be dismissed 'for its abject failure to make sufficient allegations concerning Pirro herself," the Judge's motion said.

The Dobbs motion points to constitutional issues, saying “by interviewing members of the President’s legal team and offering opinions on their allegations, [Dobbs] was fully exercising his rights as a member of the press to address matters of public interest.”

Smartmatic filed a $2.7 billion defamation and disparagement suit against Fox News owner Fox Corp. and the hosts alleging Fox conducted a disinformation campaign against the election technology company. Fox said the suit is without merit.

"The Earth is round. Two plus two equals four. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won the 2020 election for President and Vice President of the United States. The election was not stolen, rigged, or fixed. These are facts. They are demonstrable and irrefutable," Smartmatic asserted.

That argument has clearly fallen flat with Fox and its hosts.

Buying a digital movie or TV show from Amazon does not equate to ownership, the online retail giant argues. 

On Monday, Amazon asked a California federal court to dismiss a suit filed in April by California woman Amanda Caudel, alleging that position amounts to unfair competition and false advertising. Caudel filed a putative class action suit on behalf of anyone in California who purchased a streaming title from Amazon from April 26, 2016 to present. 

‘Unfortunately for consumers who chose the ‘Buy’ option, this is deceptive and untrue. Rather, the ugly truth is that Defendant secretly reserves the right to terminate the consumers’ access and use of the Video Content at any time, and has done so on numerous occasions, leaving the consumer without the ability to enjoy their already-bought Video Content,” Caudel’s suit argues. 

In its request this week to have the suit tossed, Amazon claims that it clearly states in its user agreement that when a customer buys a digital movie or show from the company, they’ve actually agreed to purchase a limited license for “on-demand viewing over an indefinite period of time.”

“The most relevant agreement here—the Prime Video Terms of Use—is presented to consumers every time they buy digital content on Amazon Prime Video,” writes Amazon attorney David Biderman in Monday’s motion to dismiss. “These Terms of Use expressly state that purchasers obtain only a limited license to view video content and that purchased content may become unavailable due to provider license restriction or other reasons.” 

And it doesn’t matter if customers read the fine print or not, Biderman wrote. 

Amazon also argues that Caudel also has no case because she hasn’t actually been harmed—she still has access to all 13 titles she’s purchased from Amazon since April 2016.

A federal judge has ruled that the core patent infringement lawsuit levied against streaming service Quibi by tech company Eko can proceed.

Two weeks after she denied Eko’s injunction request, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder dismissed three of nine claims made by New York technology company Eko. 

But as first detailed by Variety, she ruled Tuesday that the case’s core complaints, which include allegations of misappropriated trade secretes and patent infringement, can move forward. 

“Eko has adequately pled that Quibi had access to its trade secret information, and produced a technology that is similar,” Snyder wrote.

Added a Quibi press rep: “We are pleased that the court has found that Eko’s key claims state valid causes of action and we plan to refile pleadings pertaining to the remaining three claims, as the judge has recommended. We look forward to proceeding with the case.”

Also read: Quibi Wins Court Ruling: Court Denies Plaintiff Eko Preliminary Injunction

The suit filed by “JBF Limited 2019 - Israel” (doing biz as Eko) alleges that well-backed mobile streaming service Quibi ripped off its technology to create its core user feature, Turnstyle, which lets users toggle between landscape and portrait viewing modes. 

On Tuesday, Judge Snyder dismissed Eko’s claim against Quibi founder Jeffrey Katzenberg, ruling there is no evidence to suggest a meeting he took with Eko CEO Yoni Bloch resulted in any kind of “implied contract.”

Judge Snyder also dismissed a claim against two former Snap employees, who also took meetings with Eko before moving over to work with Quibi. And she dismissed a claim alleging Quibi ripped off Eko’s logo design to create its own. 

Reps for Eko didn’t immediately respond to Next TV’s inquiry for comment. 

Quibi released the following statement: “We are gratified by the Court’s decision to dismiss many of Eko’s claims, particularly since the standard for doing so is extremely high. This coupled with the Court’s recent denial of Eko’s request for a preliminary injunction demonstrate what we have said all along—this is a meritless case. We will continue to aggressively defend ourselves in court.”

The battle between XFL owner Vince McMahon and Oliver Luck continued to heat up this week, with McMahon claiming his former CEO abandoned his duties as the COVID-19 pandemic canceled the alternative football league’s regular season, used a company-issued iPhone for personal use, and signed troubled players.

Luck, a former NCAA and NFL executive, was hired by McMahon to run the fledgling league in June 2018.  The league launched on Feb. 8, but canceled its season on March 12 because of the pandemic.

On April 9, a day before the rest of the league’s employees were let go,  the XFL fired Luck for what they said was cause, claiming “gross negligence” and a “willful disregard of the lawful instructions of Mr. McMahon” concerning his duties as CEO. The XFL filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on April 13. 

Luck sued McMahon in Connecticut federal court on April 16, for wrongful termination.

According to an affidavit filed on May 13, Luck claims he is owed no less than $23.8 million, including $800,000 in base salary owed for the remaining two months of the 2020 season, a $2 million guaranteed bonus, $15 million in salary for the remaining three years on his contract and $6 million in guaranteed bonuses for the remaining three years on his employment deal. Luck added that he is also owed additional amounts for benefits through June 30, 2023, according to the contract.

[embed]https://twitter.com/XFLVipers/status/1221889988981329921[/embed]

In the termination letter -- which was filed as an exhibit in Luck’s affidavit -- McMahon and XFL parent Alpha Entertainment claims of “gross negligence” by the former CEO included his decision to sign former Cleveland Browns wide receiver Antonio Callaway to an XFL contract with a “substantial” signing bonus of $125,000. According to the letter, Luck made the signing without permission from McMahon, who had requested he sign off on players with questionable backgrounds. Callaway had past drug use problems (mainly for marijuana) and run-ins with the law.

The letter continued that Luck failed to terminate Callaway immediately, and he was later injured in a practice session with the XFL’s Tampa Bay Vipers, leading to medical and worker’s compensation costs “well in excess of six figures.”

Luck countered that McMahon was well aware of Callaway’s signing, and that the deal was made as part of the XFL owner’s directive to attract higher quality players. Luck added that it was the XFL’s policy to “refrain” from testing for marijuana, and to reject players from the pool that could be drafted only if they had a felony conviction or a conviction for dealing drugs; had multiple misdemeanor convictions establishing a pattern; or if a credible allegation of sexual assault or domestic violence had been made against him.

[embed]https://twitter.com/XFLVipers/status/1223037946418417664[/embed]

“Callaway did not fit into any of those categories and was not disqualified under XFL policies that were in place at the time he was signed to play in the XFL,” Luck claimed in the document.

When McMahon informed Luck during the week of Jan. 26 that he wanted Callaway terminated, Luck said he did just that.

“He [Callaway] never played a down in the XFL,” Luck’s affidavit claims.

McMahon also claimed that Luck “failed to exhibit any of the vigor and work ethic required of a CEO of a start-up enterprise in these trying times,” failing to devote “substantially all of [his] business time to the performance of [his] duties since March 13th, which itself is grossly negligent under the circumstances.”

In his affidavit, Luck said he did return home to Indiana on March 13, but that the league closed its offices on Sunday March 15 and ordered all staff to work from home because of the pandemic. On March 20, Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont issued a stay-at-home order in the state, asking all non-essential businesses to have their employees work from home.

As far as the cell phone, McMahon claims that when his lawyers asked Lack to return the iPhone issued to him, he failed to do so. Later, McMahon claims, Luck’s attorneys asked bankruptcy court counsel if there was a company policy about personal use of the phone.

“There was such a policy,” McMahon claims in his filing. “Thus, that phone and its contents are now evidence supporting Luck’s termination for cause.”

According to the suit, McMahon -- who also is the chairman, CEO and controlling shareholder of professional wrestling conglomerate WWE -- personally guaranteed Luck’s compensation. That is likely the reason the former CEO is suing McMahon individually instead of the bankrupt league. 

Oliver Luck, the former NFL quarterback and commissioner and CEO of the XFL, has sued league owner Vince McMahon, claiming wrongful termination.

Luck was hired last year and his pedigree -- he is a former NFL and NCAA executive -- added some needed credibility to the fledgling league.

According to the heavily redacted suit, filed April 16 in U.S. District Court in Connecticut, Luck was terminated by the XFL on April 9, a day before the league laid off the majority of its workforce. On April 13, the XFL filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, listing assets of and liabilities of between $10 million and $50 million. 

Luck reportedly signed a five-year deal worth about $20 million to run the league, and believes he is owed at least a portion of that. In the suit he claims that Alpha Entertainment, the vehicle that officially owns the XFL, “repudiated” his employment agreement. He adds that McMahon sent him a termination letter on April 9, the day before the league laid off most of its workers. 

Although the letter was redacted in the suit, Luck said he “wholly disputes and rejects the allegations set forth in the Termination Letter and contends they are pretextual and devoid of merit,” according to the document

Luck’s suit also comes days after the XFL asked the court to approve a process to sell its assets via an auction tentatively scheduled for July.

McMahon has agreed to provide debtor-in-possession financing of about $3.5 million to get the league through the sales process. That DIP financing is contingent on the court approving the auction sales process by May 15, and finalizing a sale by July 15.

Related: WWE Initiates Furloughs, Pay Cuts in COVID-19 Response 

According to bankruptcy court documents, the auction for the XFL assets -- mainly its name, trademarks and other intellectual property -- could start on July 8.

Just who would buy the assets remains to be seen. While the league enjoyed strong ratings when it launched on Feb. 8, viewership declined steadily in later weeks. Some reports have speculated that the NFL could buy the XFL and run it as an instructional league for new recruits, much like the NBA’s D-league. 

An appeals court has reinstated a nearly four-year-old case brought by ad company Viamedia that claimed Comcast monopolized the spot advertising market by locking out certain providers from local interconnects.

Viamedia, first brought the suit in 2016 and sued for $75 million in damages, claiming that Comcast prevented it from representing advertisers in Chicago, Detroit and Hartford, Conn., by gaining control of local interconnects. According to the suit, Viamedia claimed Comcast refused to deal with it or any other company that did business with the company. Those damage claims were later increased to $160 million, which after trebling under antitrust laws and pre-judgment interest could cost Comcast as much as $500 million.  

A lower court dismissed Viamedia’s claim that Comcast refused to deal with the company in 2016, and in 2018 granted the cable operator a summary judgment with respect to Viamedia’s exclusive dealing and tying claims, which Viamedia appealed.

On Feb. 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court decision, adding that “Viamedia’s allegation and evidence are sufficient to state and support claims that should be presented to a jury.”

Viamedia is represented in its lawsuit by Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick PLLC.

"We are pleased the Seventh Circuit found that our allegations and evidence are sufficient to support our antitrust claims,” Viamedia said in a statement. “This is a good day for the Viamedia team, our partners and for competition in our industry. We look forward to the opportunity to present our case to a jury and be compensated for the substantial damages to the company, as well as seek remedies that will restore Interconnects as the inclusive marketplaces they were intended to be.”

In a statement, Comcast said it was disappointed with the court’s decision and is evaluating its options.

“While we are still reviewing the decision, we are disappointed with the panel’s reversal of the lower court’s very thorough and well-reasoned decision, which was based on a careful examination of the record and the appropriate application of longstanding antitrust law,” Comcast said in its statement. “We think today’s decision reflects a misunderstanding of the facts and a misapplication of the law, and we are considering all of our options.”

A federal judge dismissed with prejudice a six-month old lawsuit filed by AT&T against Max Retrans, adding that the broadcast TV consultant headed by former Nexstar Media chief operating officer Duane Lammers did not violate a 2016 non-disclosure agreement.

The original suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in July, claimed that Max Retrans violated a non disclosure agreement it signed with AT&T in 2016, where it pledged not to disclose to third parties any sensitive information it became privy to when it had represented the telco in retrans deals.

According to the dismissal document filed with the court on Jan. 16, Max Retrans had earlier represented 11 stations -- whose names were redacted -- in a 2016 retrans negotiation. When those agreements came up for renewal in 2019, Max Retrans continued to represent the stations. AT&T had informed the consultant that its 2016 NDA was still in effect, to which Max retrans agreed.

AT&T claimed that in representing the stations in the renewal, Max Retrans used information, mainly rate data, which the telco claimed fell under the NDA.

In the dismissal document, U.S. Magistrate Judge Noelle Collins wrote that the definition of the term “third party” in the NDA was critical, adding AT&T’s assumption that the NDA would prevent stations negotiating jointly from sharing information would render the agreement “nonsensical.”

“Each of the ten station groups at issue here were parties to a single joint negotiation and thus not ‘third parties’ under the NDA,” Collins wrote. “At no point in Plaintiffs’ Complaint do Plaintiffs suggest that Lammers was negotiating exclusively on behalf of the [redacted] station group or any of the other station groups. Indeed, the Complaint is replete with allegations to the contrary.”

The stations in question were redacted in the suit, although it was revealed that nine of them went dark prior to the suit being filed. According to some sources familiar with the negotiations, Lammers represented about 20 stations that were locked in retrans disputes with AT&T and went dark on May 31. They subsequently reached agreements with AT&T after the Federal Communications Commission determined they were not negotiating with the telco in good faith. 

AT&T had been seeking compensatory damages, including lost subscriber revenue caused by Max Retrans’ breaches of contract and its misappropriation of AT&T’s trade secrets. 

“We’re reviewing the ruling and considering our options,” AT&T said in a statement concerning the dismissal.

AT&T has sued Max Retrans, a consultant to TV stations in retransmission consent negotiations and headed by former Nexstar executive Duane Lammers in federal court in St. Louis, claiming the consultant has violated non-disclosure agreements and disclosed company trade secrets.

The suit, filed Wednesday in US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, claims that Max Retrans signed an NDA with AT&T in 2016 pledging not to disclose any sensitive information it gleaned from the company when it represented the telco in some retrans deals.

Archives: 'Hammer Time' Profile of Duane Lammers from 2008

But, according to the lawsuit, Max Retrans used some of that information — particularly concerning rates AT&T paid similar stations in unrelated retrans agreements -- while it was representing independent stations in separate negotiations with the telco.

“In subsequent discussions with Lammers and, it has become clear that Max Retrans has breached, and without judicial intervention will continue to breach, the 2016 NDA,” AT&T said in its suit.

The name of the stations Lammers represented were redacted from the suit.

According to sources, Max Retrans is representing 20 stations that are currently locked in a retransmission consent dispute with AT&T. Those stations went dark to AT&T customers on May 31. 

Related: AT&T: Nexstar Pushes Retrans Meeting to Saturday 

AT&T is seeking compensatory damages, including lost subscriber revenue caused by Max Retrans’ breaches of contract and its misappropriation of AT&T’s trade secrets. 

“AT&T also seeks to recover retransmission consent fees related to any agreements AT&T may reach with station groups that have benefited from Max Retrans’ unlawful conduct, and further seeks punitive damages for Max Retrans’ willful and malicious unlawful conduct; attorneys’ fees; and declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent further unlawful disclosure of AT&T’s confidential information.”

Netflix targets executives at Hollywood studios, along with the lengths of their employment contracts, on a spread sheet, contacts them by personal email and subsidizes personal legal help.

These are all accusations made by Fox as a lawsuit over the streaming service’s alleged poaching tactics heads for trial in May.

“Netflix has systematically executed a blueprint for poaching,” reads a Fox motion, filed by attorney Daniel Petrocelli, and obtained by The Hollywood Reporter.

Fox said it will seek only $1 in damages for the alleged illegal poaching in 2016 by Netflix of Fox 21 TV development executive Tara Flynn, as well as film executive Marcos Waltenberg.

Fox claims Netflix unethically practices “communications through personal email accounts, the provision of free legal counsel for executives thinking of leaving a rival studio, and indemnification in the event of litigation.”

Netflix, meanwhile, is arguing to have the case dismissed, claiming all Fox executive “fixed-term employment contracts" are bogus, anyway. It accuses Fox of “hostage-taking,” and is asking Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lawrence Cho to dismiss the case.

Rovi Corp. continues to press its three-year-old legal battle with Comcast, filing suit over unpaid patents in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

According to the TiVo company, the patents relate to DVR functions including cloud or network recording, and whole-home DVR arrangements.

“Litigation is always a last resort, but Rovi is committed to taking the necessary actions to ensure Comcast renews its long-standing license for the use of our intellectual property,” said interim TiVo CEO Raghu Rau, in a statement. "The patents involved in the new complaint represent a very small component of Rovi's worldwide patent portfolio. Regardless of size, we have a commitment to our stakeholders, licensees and customers to take all necessary action to protect this portion of our patent portfolio."

Related: TiVo CEO Rau Says Comcast Will Still ‘Ultimately Pay’ Despite Recent Patent Board Wins

Comcast responded with this statement: “Rovi has in recent years deployed its increasingly obsolete patent portfolio in an unsuccessful litigation campaign seeking to charge Comcast and our customers for technology that Rovi did not invent. Rovi launched this campaign in April 2016 by asserting infringement of 15 patents--14 of which have been held to be invalid and/or not infringed by Comcast, or have been withdrawn by Rovi. While we haven’t had an opportunity to review Rovi’s latest complaint, we will continue to defend ourselves against allegations we determine to be meritless.”

Rovi Corp. began a legal battle to get Comcast to make patent licensing payments in 2016, before its merger with TiVo. The tussle has mushroomed into a multi-venue affair spanning the International Trade Commission to various federal courts. In recent months, Comcast has won a series of victories with the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeals Board, with the government entity invalidating a number of contested Rovi patents.

In an interview with MCN last year, a TiVo/Rovi attorney said those appeals victories are relatively inconsequential to the company’s larger goal—to keep the pressure on Comcast and forcing it to settle. Having the largest U.S. pay TV operator not pay technology licensing fees would render TiVo’s patent business “untenable,” given all other major pay TV operators do pay these fees to the company.

Notably, TiVo's litigation cost spiked $1.1 million in the third quarter, part of a steadily escalating bill to sustain the fight against Comcast. 

“Over the past quarter century, Rovi has invested over a billion dollars in the research and development of our products and portfolio,” TiVo said in its statement today. “Hundreds of media and entertainment leaders around the world value Rovi’s innovations and recognize them by selecting our products and services and licensing our intellectual property. Until 2016, Comcast was one of those companies, enhancing their customers' entertainment experience with TiVo technology. After numerous attempts at negotiations, Rovi had no choice but to defend its intellectual property from unlicensed use in court.”

CableLabs has filed suit against Buckeye Broadband in a Colorado federal court, claiming the Ohio cable operator hasn’t paid its dues all year, Cablefax reports.

The journal said Buckeye, which is owned by Block Communications, decided to pull out of the industry consortium at the beginning of 2018, and has not paid its Q1, Q2 and Q3 dues. CableLabs, meanwhile, is reportedly digging in, holding the operator to a three-year-notice requirement that wouldn’t leave it eligible to leave the organization cleanly until Jan. 21, 2021.

CableLabs said it can't comment on pending litigation, while Block Communications commenting. The suit was filed Friday in Colorado District Court.

Buckeye’s decision to leave CableLabs, an organization it joined in 1992, reportedly came after the consortium announced its 2018 dues, which were determined to by 0.05157% of the members revenue from cable services from the previous quarter. 

Buckeye remains listed on CableLabs list of member companies. 

The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board has once again sided with Comcast in its intellectual property battle with TiVo, invalidating two more of the latter’s patents.

The patents include No. 9,172,987, “Methods and Systems for Updating Functionality of a Set-top Box Using Markup Language”; and No. 8,713,595, “Interactive Program Guide Systems and Processes.” (No. 9,172,987 was ruled invalid on Sept. 7, while No. 8,713,595 was invalidated in an earlier Aug. 27 ruling.)

Related: TiVo Settles Patent Skirmish With Altice in Portugal

In its New York Southern District federal lawsuit against Comcast, TiVo now has only one patent left that hasn’t been ruled invalid. Comcast has filed for a summary judgement of non-infringement to strike down that final patent.

In August, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board also determined that Patent No. 8,621,512, which deals with DVR recording features, was also invalid.

Since 2016, TiVo has aggressively targeted Comcast in venues including a New York federal court and the International Trade Commission, seeking to collect licensing fees on technologies that it claims are used in Comcast’s X1 video operating system.

TiVo said its litigation costs increased to $5.6 million in the second quarter, mainly due to its battle with Comcast.

Related: Comcast Wins Battle in Patent War with TiVo

Formed in 2016 following Rovi Corp.’s $1.1 billion takeover of DVR pioneer TiVo, New TiVo has more than 6,000 patents and pending patent applications on file and has been largely successful in getting pay TV operators and technology companies to pay licensing fees.

The inability to bring Comcast to heel could have profound implications to TiVo’s bid to collect on its patents from other complanies moving forward.

“We are pleased that the Patent Office agrees with us that these Rovi patents are invalid,” Comcast said in a statement. “We look forward to rulings from the Patent Office in our challenges to Rovi’s other patents.”

Responded TiVo: “There are over 1,000 different patents in Rovi's portfolio and Comcast's unprecedented effort to try to challenge a handful of them doesn't change the fact that they have already been found in violation of critical Rovi patents and are being forced to punish their own customers by removing popular features. In this particular instance we are optimistic about our appeal options, we expect that Comcast will continue to be found in violation of these and other patents in the future and are unwavering in our commitment to take the necessary legal actions to ensure Comcast renews its long-standing license to fairly compensate Rovi for the use of our IP.”

Updated: The headline of this story was revised to reflect that the lawsuit was settled, not won by Dish Network.

Dish Network has prevailed in its quest to stop at least one operator of an “add-on” within the Kodi ecosystem from retransmitting content on its satellite network.

Dish filed suit in Texas against the overseas operators of ZemTV and TVAddons last year. In the complaint, Montreal resident Adam Lackman, operator of TVAddons, and London-based Shahjahan Durrani, proprietor of ZemTV, were accused of copyright infringement, with Dish seeking $150,000 in compensation for each alleged instance of infringement.

In a statement, TVAddons said: “As a result of the settlement of a lawsuit, we have agreed with Dish Network to remove and cease providing assistance for all add-ons that retransmit any of the following channels: Aaj Tak, Aastha Bhajan, Aastha TV, ARY Digital, ARY News, B4U Movies, B4U Music, Dunya TV, Express Entertainment, Express News, Geo News, Geo TV, Hum Masala, Hum Sitaray, Hum TV, India Today (Headlines Today), Movies OK, Sahara One, Sahara Samay, Times Now, and Zoom.

“Furthermore, an expedited DMCA process has been enacted that will ensure a swift response to any future claims made by Dish Network. Please note that this settlement did not involve the exchange of any data or user information whatsoever. If you are interested in receiving any of these channels, you may contact Dish at www.dish.com or Sling at www.sling.com."

News of the settlement was first reported by Cord Cutter News.

Closure on the ZemTV case is uncertain.

According to a May report in TorrentFreak, Durban asked his lawyer to stop defending him, with the matter seemingly headed to default judgement, and Dish charged with recouping its award from a foreign national.

“I don’t have enough resources to fight this case completely with four kids that I am raising and anything more I do will be seem to be submitting to the U.S. Courts which I am not going to do unless I have enough money to fight the case,” told his lawyer at the time. 

Tribune Media said in court filings Thursday that its merger path over the past 12 months with Sinclair Broadcast Group was bloodied not by regulatory pressure but by its partner's hubris, and is seeking $1 billion in damages to help heal its wounds.

Tribune officially terminated its $3.9 billion merger with Sinclair on Thursday. In a lawsuit filed in Delaware Chancery Court the same day, Tribune said Sinclair repeatedly failed to disclose key information from it and regulators, a practice which helped torpedo the deal.

According to the suit, the deal would have likely been approved months ago if Sinclair had only agreed to divest of stations in 10 overlap markets earmarked by the U.S. Department of Justice and presented clean station sales to the Federal Communications Commission to adhere to the federal broadcast ownership cap. Instead the company, according to Tribune, focused on deals that would greatly benefit Sinclair and only added to the deal’s regulatory onus.

Officials at Sinclair did not return requests for comment.

“Although staff members at DOJ and the FCC laid out a clear path for clearance of the Merger, Sinclair ignored their repeated statements of what was required for approval,” Tribune said in the filing. “Instead, Sinclair defiantly (and unsuccessfully) attempted to obtain clearance on better terms for itself, regardless of how long that took or whether it risked failing to obtain approval of the Merger.”

Sinclair made several proposals to divest stations and appease the agency, but it was a plan to sell two Texas stations – WDAK in Dallas and KIAH in Houston – and WGN in Chicago, that seemed to be the last straw for the government. FCC chairman Ajit Pai said those divestitures, to entities that had close ties to Sinclair, could represent possible sham transactions, and called for a hearing before an administrative law judge to look into the matter. In past merger reviews, such moves usually meant the deal was destined for the scrap heap.

Related: Pai: Sinclair-Tribune Decision Made Based on Facts, Law 

Tribune said Sinclair never informed it nor the government that the proposed buyer of the three stations – Cunningham Communications – was owned by a car dealer Steven Fader who’s biggest shareholder was Sinclair chairman David Smith. Nor did the broadcaster disclose that a controlling interest in Cunningham’s had been sold at a “suspiciously low price” to a Sinclair associate with re-purchase options held by Smith’s family members.

Those revelations came only out during public comments on the merger. Tribune said Sinclair never revealed it to its merger partner or the federal government.

Sinclair later pulled those sales -- opting to keep WGN and place the Texas stations in a trust for later sale -- but offered no other remedies, the suit claims.  

According to the suit, the 10 markets DOJ considered to be overlap areas – including Seattle, St. Louis and Salt Lake City – were properties Sinclair had already considered selling as part of the merger deal.

“Yet Sinclair refused, deciding instead to antagonize DOJ officials, including by accusing the Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division — the highest ranking official in that division — of ‘completely misunderstand[ing]’ the broadcast industry and being ‘more regulatory’ than any recent predecessor,” the suit said.

And that goading only increased in later meetings with DOJ officials, the suit said.

“Sinclair invited litigation over station divestitures, summarizing its position to DOJ in two words: ‘sue me.’”

Now the broadcaster will have to weather being the sue-ee instead of the sue-er. 

Fox News Channel has fired back against a lawsuit by former employee Andrea Tantaros against the network and several of its employees, asking a U.S. District Court in New York to dismiss the complaint and sanction Tantaros's lawyer.

That came in a memorandum of law filed in support of FNC's motion for sanctions against attorney Judd Burstein, who is representing Tantaros, who claimed sexual harassment by late Fox News chief Roger Ailes and a campaign of digital harassment and surveillance.

Related: Tantaros Says Fox News Execs Approved Digital Harassment

In the memo, Fox News said the complaint read like a the plot of a TV drama, with claims of hacking, phone tapping andcoded messages via a "sock puppet" social media account.

It called the complaint a work of fiction and the allegations of systematic harassment, surveillance and criminal conduct "outrageously and flagrantly false."

Related: Fox News Channel Being Investigated for Settlement Payments

Fox says the allegation of criminal conduct was simply a ploy to grab headlines and inflict "maximum damage" on the company.

He said Tantaros's lawyer either did not sufficiently vet his client's claims or knew they were a hoax.

The motion was filed on behalf of Fox News Channel, William Shine (who has left the company) and executive Irena Briganti, and it seeks sanctions on both Burstein and Tantaros.

FNC also said Tantaros' original complaint was improperly filed with the court, rather than the arbitration forum required by Tantaros's contract.

Specifically, Fox wants the court to (1) make Burstein and Tantaros pay the court costs of litigation fees and expenses; (2) dismiss the complaint with prejudice (meaning it can't be repaired and refiled); (3) require Tantaros to bring any future claims related to her employment to arbitration; and (4) refer the attorney's conduct to "disciplinary authorities."

Attorney Daryl Parks said AT&T has denied his request to speak at its shareholders meeting about his clients' allegations of broadband redlining in Cleveland, though a copy of that letter signaled that AT&T would share his concerns with the board.

Parks earlier this week said those clients would be suing AT&T over the issue and wanted to bring that to shareholders' attention personally. That comes as AT&T is trying to get its merger with Time Warner approved by the Justice Department, a point Parks made in announcing the suit.

"Yesterday I received a fax from AT&T’s Stacey Maris, senior vice president, assistant general counsel and secretary in response to the letter we delivered April 24th," Parks told Multichannel News. "AT&T has specifically denied my request to speak at the annual shareholders meeting that occurs this Friday, April 28, 2017. Stating that 'The agenda for our Annual Meeting is already established, but if you attend our Meeting, I hope you find it informative and enjoyable.'"

Parks, who represented the family of Trayvon Martin, said AT&T did not address his request for a meeting or the merits of the allegations. He said the company was stonewalling, that the issue "will not simply disappear" and that redlining was not confined to Ohio.

"So from this point, we intend to generate a national dialogue about unequal and unfair essential broadband services," he said. "We fully expect to move AT&T from its current posture of denial to one of acceptance, and then to one of correction, change and reconciliation."

An AT&T spokesperson was not available for comment at press time, but the company said in response to the threatened suit: "We don't favor any demographic when it comes to providing any service we offer. The market for internet service has never been more vibrant and competitive, both wireless and wireline. We would like nothing more than to serve every customer in Cleveland that wants our services.”

According to a copy of the full letter obtained by Multichannel News/B&C, AT&T did agree to share his letter and the allegations with the members of the board, and said he Parks was welcome at the meeting.

The text of the letter appears below:

Dear Mr. Parks

We Have received your letter dated yesterday. Whle I won't comment on the specifics of your letter here, I want to confirm for you that it will be shared with our Board of Directors for its consideration. In addition, as a shareholder, you are warmly invited to attend our Annual Meeting on Friday here in Dallas. As you know, all our proxy materials mayh be found at www.proxy.att. The agenda for our Annual Meeting is already established, but if you attend our meeting, I hope you find it informative and enjoyable.

Sincerely,
Stacey Maris.

The city of New York filed a lawsuit in state Supreme Court in New York County on Monday, claiming that telecom behemoth Verizon Communications failed to live up to its promise to make its fiber-based Fios TV service available to all Gotham residents.

News of the suit was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

The city has been at odds with Verizon since 2015 regarding the telco’s buildout of its Fios fiber optic pay TV, broadband and telephone service. According to the franchise agreement Verizon signed with the city in 2008, the telecom company pledged to have Fios available to 100% of the City’s 8.5 million residents by 2014.

But the city’s own audit of that promise found the telco fell way short of that goal. In June 2015, Mayor Bill De Blasio, Counsel to the Mayor Maya Wiley and Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications Commissioner Anne Roest announced an audit report that found blocks in the city that Verizon had marked as completed in the fiber buildout had not installed the necessary equipment and service and that Verizon had failed to consistently document service requests. In addition, the audit said about 40,000 requests for service were pending, many for 12 months or longer.

"Verizon must face the consequences for breaking the trust of 8.5 million New Yorkers,” Mayor De Blasio said in a statement. “Verizon promised that every household in the city would have access to its fiber-optic FiOS service by 2014. It's 2017 and we're done waiting. No corporation -- no matter how large or powerful -- can break a promise to New Yorkers and get away with it."

Verizon has disputed the City’s position, and claims it has lived up to its agreement completely. The telecom company said it already provides service to about 2.2 million city residents, has proposed investing another $1 billion in fiber in New York City over the next four years, and has committed to expanding Fios availability to another 1 million homes and thousands of small businesses.

“At a time when communities across the country are seeking and encouraging broadband investments like these, the City is inexplicably turning its back on this investment and its residents by pursuing foolish litigation that will harm jobs, business growth and technology competition throughout all five boroughs,” Verizon said in a statement. "The De Blasio administration is disingenuously attempting to rewrite the terms of an agreement made with its predecessor and is acting in its own political self-interests that are completely at odds with what’s best for New Yorkers. We plan to vigorously fight the city’s allegations.”

According to a letter sent to Mayor de Blasio on March 10, Verizon EVP of public policy and general counsel Craig Silliman argued that the city is playing a game of semantics.

In the letter, Silliman wrote that when the franchise deal was reached with a previous mayoral administration, the parties had agreed to change the definition of a passed home.

“In negotiating the agreement, both parties understood and agreed that Verizon would generally place its fiber-optic network along the same routes as has been used for its copper network, and would use similar strategies for accessing individual buildings,” Silliman wrote. “The obligation to ‘pass’ all buildings in the city was based on and consistent with that approach. This is confirmed by the fact that the parties advertently and intentionally omitted language found in the City’s agreements with cable providers that specified that a household is passed when functioning system facilities have been installed in the street fronting the building in which the household is located. The very argument you are now making is this contradicted by both parties understanding of passed households at the time the agreement was executed.”

In New York, Verizon must obtain permission from building owners to bring its fiber network into the building, which the company claims is the reason its penetration is higher in single-family suburban homes in the outer boroughs.   

Silliman continued that Verizon has spent about $3.7 billion to install thousands of miles of fiber in the city, passes all households in the area and can provide service within seven to 14 days of receiving a request.  

Sprint was awarded $139.8 million by a federal jury Friday, stemming from a six-year old suit that claimed Time Warner Cable infringed on its patents for voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP), a method of transferring voice calls over digital lines.

Sprint originally filed the suit in 2011, alleging that TWC, Comcast, Cox and Cable One violated at least 12 VoIP patents by selling systems and services that used technology protected by the patents. The suits were filed in federal court in Kansas City.

Sprint was obviously pleased with the verdict and according to a report in Bloomberg News, Charter was disappointed and weighing its options.

Comcast is next up on the trial docket, scheduled to go before the same judge – John W. Lungstrum – on March 7.

According to Bloomberg, TWC (now owned by Charter Communications) “willfully infringed” on five of Sprint’s patents, meaning the damages could be trebled.

Cox Communications countersued Sprint in 2011 alleging that Sprint’s claims were too vague and therefore invalid. A federal court agreed with Cox but that decision was reversed on appeal in 2016. The current status of that case could not be determined.

Sprint’s suit against Cable One was dismissed by the court in November 2016, according to court documents.

WASHINGTON — AT&T’s road to approval of its merger with Time Warner Inc. may have gotten a bit rockier last week with the announced Department of Justice lawsuit against both the telco and its DirecTV subsidiary, and by the same team that will be reviewing the proposed deal.

Whether the Federal Communications Commission will get to review the deal remains a question. As Multichannel News pointed out when the merger was announced, the DOJ will review it for antitrust issues, and that review will be led by two officials who, until only a few months ago, were FCC officials dealing directly with merger reviews.

One is Renata Hesse, who succeeded Bob Baer back in April atop DOJ’s antitrust division, and prior to that was a merger adviser to the FCC on such issues as blocking the proposed AT&T-T-Mobile deal.

The other, former FCC general counsel Jonathan Sallet, last week was listed as the lead attorney on the DOJ team that brought the suit against DirecTV and its corporate parent, AT&T; the suit alleges they were the ringleaders in a series of “unlawful information exchanges” in negotiations with Time Warner Cable over carriage of SportsNet LA, the regional sports network managed by the MSO (since acquired by Charter Communications) and owned by baseball’s Los Angeles Dodgers.

AT&T respectfully disagreed with that conclusion and will fight the charges in court even as it tries to get Sallet and company to approve the merger, promising it will deal fairly with competitors over content.

Sallet, now deputy assistant attorney general of the DOJ’s antitrust division, said in announcing the suit, “Competition, not collusion, best serves consumers, and that is especially true when, as with pay television providers, consumers have only a handful of choices in the marketplace.”

One of the key issues in the AT&T-Time Warner deal is access to all of Time Warner’s content and whether AT&T would try to keep it to itself. The companies argue that they will, in fact, make Time Warner content more accessible and become a stronger competitor to pay TV providers, thus expanding that handful of choices with a stronger mobile content offering.

Not surprisingly, one of the groups trying to block the merger, Public Knowledge, used the suit as an argument against the AT&T-TW deal in particular and further consolidation in general.

Adonis Hoffman, former chief of staff to FCC commissioner Mignon Clyburn, said he thinks the deal will go through and noted that having Sallet lead the review team is both a plus and minus for the deal’s prospects.

“Sallet knows his way around these issues, but clearly there is some pretty strong language on behavior that could carry over into the review, if not by him, then by others on his team,” Hoffman said. “But remember, this is the same Jonathan Sallet who approved the AT&TDirecTV merger and Charter-Time Warner Cable merger. So, he is not opposed to mergers and he is a brilliant antitrust lawyer.”

“If allegations of wrongdoing are there for this specific case, that is one thing, but I think Sallet is professional enough to differentiate between alleged bad action with respect to carriage negotiations versus a vertical merger,” Hoffman said.

AT&T and Time Warner certainly hope so.

As expected, AT&T last week sued Nashville soon after the city awarded final approval to a “One Touch Make Ready” ordinance that Google Fiber claimed was necessary for it to accelerate its deployment there.

The suit (PDF via DSL Reports), filed September 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee Nashville Division, seeks declaratory and permanent injunctive relief to restrain the city from enforcing this new ordinance.

AT&T claims that the new rules conflict with and are is preempted by the pole attachment regulations of the FCC, and that the ordinance is invalid as a matter of Tennessee law because it conflicts with Metro Nashville’s Charter.  AT&T also held that the ordinance impairs AT&T’s existing contract with Metro Nashville, and that it would permit a third-party – Google Fiber, in this case, to temporarily seize AT&T’s property and possibly alter or relocate that property without AT&T’s consent.  

AT&T also argued that the ordinance would require the attacher to provide AT&T with 15 days prior notice of the attacher’s work. And if the attacher discovered that its work could cause a customer outage, AT&T would have 30 days to perform the necessary work, and possibly not give it enough time to avoid a service outage.

AT&T also argued that “even one instance of improper work on aerial facilities can easily cost AT&T more than $75,000.”

Per DSL Reports, Fluer Knowlsey, senior counsel of Alphabet’s Access group already expressed disappointment that AT&T had threatened to take the issue to court “in an effort to block Nashville’s efforts to increase broadband competition should the OTMR ordinance pass... In the event of OTMR litigation, Google Fiber will therefore be glad to share the capabilities of its in-house and outside attorneys, including some of the most experienced and accomplished regulatory attorneys in the industry."

Fox News Channel responded to former anchor Andrea Tantaros’s sexual harassment lawsuit by saying her complaint is filled with falsehoods and should be resolved in arbitration.

In a filing with New York State Supreme Court, Fox News said “Tarantos is not a victim; she is an opportunist.”

Related:Ailes, Fox News Channel Hit With Another Sexual Harassment Suit

Former Fox News chairman Roger Ailes was forced out of his post after former anchor Gretchen Carlson filed a sexual harassment lawsuit. Parent company 21st Century Fox launched an investigation that turned up other women with similar complaints.

Tarantos’ lawsuit named Fox News and several other senior executives at the network.

Read more at broadcastingcable.com.

Fox News Channel and former chairman Roger Ailes have been hit with another sexual harassment suit.

Anchor Andrea Tantaros filed a complaint in New York State Supreme Court and named Fox News Channel and several of its executives, including Ailes, recently named co-president Bill Shine, programming head Suzanne Scott, counsel  Dianne Brandi and public relations chief Irena Briganti.

Ailes resigned last month following a similar sexual harassment lawsuit filed by former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson and an investigation by parent company 21st Century Fox that turned up complaints by other female Fox News staffers. Fox News said it does not comment on pending litigation.

Tantaros said in the suit, “Fox News masquerades as a defender of traditional family values, but behind the scenes, it operates like a sex-fueled, Playboy Mansion-like cult, steeped in intimidation, indecency, and misogyny.”

Tantaros also charged that Ailes did not act alone. “He may have been the primary culprit, but his actions were condoned by his most senior lieutenants, who engaged in a concerted effort to silence Tantaros by threats, humiliation and retaliation,” her suit said.

She added that 21st Century Fox’s top execs, Rupert, James and Lachlan Murdoch, “have been misleading the public into believing that they are taking action. In fact, they have done the opposite.”

In the suit, Ailes is accused of making inappropriate comments like “turn around so I can get a good look on you” -- a request so common at Fox News it was referred to as “The Twirl” -- and “I bet you look good in a bikini.”

“Perhaps the most shocking encounter of all,” the suit said, “was a Spring 2015 meeting between Tantaros and Fox News senior xxecutive, defendant William Shine, during which Tantaros sought relief from Ailes’s sexual harassment. In response, Shine told Tantaros that Ailes was a ‘very powerful man’ and that Tantaros ‘needed to let this one go.’ Yet, after Ailes was revealed to be a sexual predator and forced to resign, Shine was promoted to co-president of Fox News. Shine’s inexplicable elevation sends the message that it will be ‘business as usual’ at Fox News when it comes to the treatment of women.”

Read more at broadcastingcable.com.

Lawyers for former Fox News Channel anchor Gretchen Carlson, who has sued Fox News chairman Roger Ailes for sexual harassment, said they want Ailes to deny the charges under oath.

Ailes on Wednesday released a statementcalling Carlson’s accusations “false” and “defamatory.” He said that Carlson’s contract was not renewed because ratings were disappointing, not because she refused any alleged improper advances.

Carlson’s attorneys released a statement Thursday spelling out what they said were the ratings changes for Carlson’s FNC show, The Real Story With Gretchen Carlson. They said that despite being moved to a tough time slot and getting insufficient support and promotion, the show's ratings went up, and Carlson was successful.

Visit broadcastingcable.com to read the statement from Carlson’s legal team of Nancy Erika Smith and Martin Hyman.

Former Fox News Channel anchor Gretchen Carlson has filed suit charging that she was fired after being sexually harassed by Fox News chairman and CEO Roger Ailes.

Carlson is seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

The suit, filed in Superior Court of New Jersey, charges that Ailes fired the 50-year-old Carlson because she refused to sleep with him and reported disparaging treatment in the newsroom.

Update:Fox Launches Internal Review of Ailes Allegations

She was let go the day her contract expired — June 23 — despite her show, The Real Story With Gretchen Carlson, being the leading cable news program in its afternoon time slot, the suit says.

"We believe that the evidence will confirm that Gretchen was fired from Fox & Friends for speaking up about demeaning and discriminatory behavior on and off the set," said Nancy Erika Smith of Smith Mullin, who is representing Carlson.

The complaint describes an exchange with Ailes during a meeting last September in which Carlson said she tried to discuss ongoing discriminatory treatment.

"I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago and then you'd be good and better and I'd be good and better," Ailes allegedly told Carlson at the time, according to the complaint, which said he added that "sometimes problems are easier to solve" that way.

Read more at broadcastingcable.com.

As expected, Viacom executive chairman and CEO Philippe Dauman and board member George Abrams have filed suit in Massachusetts Probate and Family Court to try to block a move by their former boss Sumner Redstone to remove them from the  trust that would manage the company in the event of Redstone’s death or incapacitation.

The suit brings to a head moves over the weekend by Redstone, angered over Dauman’s attempts to sell a minority stake in Paramount Pictures and the overall decline of the media company he helped build. In the suit, Dauman and Abrams are seeking immediate judicial relief and a court ruling to invalidate their removal from the trust.

The two men said in a statement that Redstone’s daughter, National Amusements and Viacom director Shari Redstone is unduly influencing her father, who they claim they have been denied access to.

“Shari Redstone is attempting to illegally hijack her father’s well-established estate plan by removing professional managers and reportedly installing her daughter, an employee and a friend who are firmly under her control,” Dauman said in a statement. “We all continue to have great respect and affection for Mr. Redstone, but he is clearly being manipulated by his daughter, Shari.  After years of estrangement, she has inserted herself into his home, taken over his life, and isolated him from anyone not under her control, including long-time business colleagues.  In fact, she has recently and repeatedly arranged to deny requests for Viacom Board members to meet with her father.  Her singular goal is to assume complete control of his businesses, despite Mr. Redstone’s long-term desire for a professionally managed Trust and an independent Board of Directors.  Shari’s actions amount to an unlawful corporate takeover, and if effectuated, could have far-reaching consequences for thousands of shareholders and employees of Viacom.”

In a separate statement, Abrams said Redstone’s moves are out of character, reflect a “diminished capacity,”  and contradict what have been his wishes for more than 25 years.

“My sole purpose in joining in this law suit is to allow  a court to determine whether Sumner Redstone, in his current diminished capacity, has been subject to undue influence in his recent actions in changing his Trustees and in changing  other documents,” Abrams said in the statement. “ For over 25 years Sumner has discussed his will and various Trusts with me and I was instrumental in setting up this Trust at the time of his divorce.  He has impressed on me his wishes that the Trust be managed in a professional manner and that the children of the son and his daughter be treated fairly and equally despite some internal family conflicts.  He also discussed at length with me his feelings about Viacom and CBS and the future of both companies.  The changes purportedly being made would alter his previously and repeatedly expressed wishes.  As a result of some of the information which has recently  been received, I believe a court test on the question of undue influence is necessary.”

In a sign that its retransmission talks with Comcast's NBCUniversal networks aren’t going as smoothly it would like, Dish Network said it has filed a lawsuit against the programmer, alleging breach of contract.

In a statement, Dish said NBC’s public statements over the past 24 hours are in violation of its agreement with the programmer, prompting the suit.

"Dish has successfully negotiated agreements representing numerous networks in recent months that benefit all parties, including our viewers,” Dish said in a statement. “Dish’s goal is to reach a mutually beneficial deal with NBC.”

Dish said it is also seeking arbitration, which it says would prevent NBC from pulling its signal while negotiations were ongoing.

"Under the conditions imposed by the FCC and Department of Justice in approving the Comcast-NBCUniversal merger, NBC is forbidden from blacking out its networks if a pay-TV provider chooses, in its sole discretion, to exercise its right for binding arbitration,” Dish said in a statement. “Regulators implemented these conditions to prevent Comcast and NBC from harming consumers and competition.”

"In the event of arbitration, affected programming would remain available during that process, and for the foreseeable future," Dish continued.

NBC has been running ads telling Dish customers that they could lose access to NBC programming if a carriage deal isn’t reached by the contract deadline of March 20. The negotiations involve 10 NBC and 16 Telemundo owned and operated stations as well as cable networks including USA, Syfy, Bravo, CNBC and MSNBC. 

 “Should Dish proceed with arbitration we will of course participate in the process, and look forward to receiving the fair market value for our portfolio of network,” NBCUniversal said through a spokesperson.

Byron Allen’s Entertainment Studios Networks along with the National Association of African-American Owned Media (NAAAOM) Wednesday filed a $10 billion lawsuit in United States District Court against Charter Communications for engaging in “racial discrimination” by not launching African-American owned networks.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday night in filed in United States District Court in Central District of California, comes less than a month after Entertainment Studios settled a similar discrimination lawsuit against AT&T and DirecTV after AT&T signed to carry Entertainment Studios’ portfolio of networks.

The suit alleges that Charter Communications has engaged in racial discrimination by not contracting with 100% African American-owned media.The suit further states that of the more than $4 billion spent annually by Charter Communications on cable channel carriage fees and advertising, none is spent with 100% African American-owned media companies. 

In light of Charter’s actions, the FCC should never approve Charter Communications’ acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, according to the lawsuit.

“Our lawsuit seeks to stop Charter Communications’ ‘Jim Crow’ policies and collusion with elected officials in order to continue its exclusion of 100% African American-owned media,” says Allen in a statement. “President Obama and the FCC have left 100% African American-owned media with no choice but to fight for our rights.  With this suit, as well as others to follow, NAAAOM and I intend to stop these corporate racist atrocities and the resulting African American financial genocide that we witness every day."

The lawsuit also comes two weeks after Charter signed a memorandum of understanding with a dozen diversity organizations to diversify its board of directors and to hire a chief diversity offer to head its diversity and inclusion efforts once its proposed merger with Time Warner Cable is approved.

In a statement, Charter said: "This is a desperate tactic that this programmer has used before with other distributors.  We will not comment further at this time."

A Texas woman who received more than 150 “robo-calls” over the course of a year from Time Warner Cable sent her own message to the cable operator Tuesday after a Manhattan federal judge ordered TWC to pay her nearly $230,000 and scolded the operator for what he called “particularly egregious” conduct.

Araceli King of Irving, Texas said the calls began in October 2013 and were for a former Time Warner Cable customer Luiz Perez who previously had her cellphone number. But even after King had contacted a live TWC rep and after a seven-minute conversation believed she convinced them she was not Luiz Perez, the calls continued.

Time Warner Cable claimed that because it believed it was calling Perez, who had consented to the calls, it was not in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the 1991 law specifically meant to prevent computerized or  “robo-calls” and telemarketing abuses. In addition, the calls were made by an interactive voice response (IVR) system set up to notify customers of delinquent payments, not technically an automatic dialer, which TWC claimed also does not violate the Act.

In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein wasn’t buying any of it.

“A responsible business in TWC’s position might have dispatched a live agent to reach out to Luiz Perez after the IVR failed to reach him the first several times,” Hellerstein wrote in his ruling. “…The responsible company will reduce its exposure dramatically by taking proactive steps to mitigate damages, while its competitor, who unthinkingly robo-dials the same person hundreds of time[s] over many months without pausing to wonder why it cannot reach him, cannot complain about much higher liability.”

He added that even after King filed the lawsuit on March 26, 2014 she received an additional 74 calls from TWC, which proved to the court that TWC was not taking the lawsuit or its customer complaint seriously.

“Defendant harassed Plaintiff with robo-calls until she had to resort to a lawsuit to make the calls stop, and even then TWC could not be bothered to update the information in the its IVR system,” Hellerstein wrote. “The calls placed after March 26, 2014 are particularly egregious violations of the TCPA and indicate that TWC simply did not take this lawsuit seriously.”

Hellerstein awarded King treble damages -- $1,500 for each of the 153 calls – for a total of $229,500.

According to reports, Time Warner Cable is reviewing the decision.

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore has sued Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based media company that purchased his Current TV in 2013 for $500 million, in state court in Wilmington, Delaware, claiming it has failed to make payments to himself and his partners.

According to a case summary of the suit, Gore claims that Al Jazeera has withheld about $65 million in payments due him and his partners in an escrow account. According to the summary, about $85 million of the purchase price was placed in escrow in 2013, mainly for the purpose of satisfying indemnification obligations of the sellers. Those unused funds were to be returned after the escrow period on July 2, 2014.

“Rather than return the $65 million remaining in the escrow, as it was obligated to do, Defendant, on June 27, 2014, submitted five claim certificates through which it attempts to manufacture several ways to retain all of the escrow balance for itself in express violation of the merger agreement,” according to the case summary.

Gore, who formed Current TV in 2005, sold the cable network in January 2013 to Al Jazeera, which then used the channel to launch its Al Jazeera America network. The sale was surprising at the time in that Al Jazeera was willing to pay such a hefty price for a network with minuscule ratings. The deal highlighted the value of carriage – despite its low ratings, the network was available in about 58 million homes. Although it suffered some resistance in the beginning – Time Warner Cable initially dropped the network but later reinstated it – Al Jazeera America is now available in about 55 million homes in the U.S.

In a statement, Gore’s attorney, David Boies, said that Al Jazeera “wants to give itself a discount,” over the purchase price it agreed to in 2012.

“We are asking the court to order Al Jazeera America to stop wrongfully withholding the escrow funds that belong to Current’s former shareholders,” Boies said in the statement.

The case has been filed under seal in Delaware Chancery Court in Wilmington, although Boies is trying to get the court to unseal the document.

“We do not believe that our complaint should be sealed,” Boies said in a statement. “However, despite being a news organization, Al Jazeera America has said that the full complaint should be kept from the public file.  We have therefore filed the complaint under seal until the Court can resolve this issue.  We expect that the Court will reject Al Jazeera America’s argument.”

“Our outside counsel is reviewing the complaint,” Al Jazeera America spokeswoman Dawn Bridges said in an e-mail message. “We think it relates to a commercial dispute between former shareholders of Current Media and Al Jazeera America. We may have further comment once they’ve fully reviewed everything.”