Washington Attorney General Files Comcast Lawsuit

The Washington state Attorney General has filed a Comcast lawsuit against the cable and Internet provider, alleging that the company discriminated against black customers. Those allegations were later denied in a court of law, but major civil rights groups have backed the plaintiff’s case. In his December 2018 lawsuit, Allen claimed that Comcast charged him extra for modems that he returned without a refund. He alleged that Comcast executives used racial slurs to refer to African American billionaire Bob Johnson.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that Comcast’s “Service Protection Plan,” a $4.99 monthly fee for repairs and maintenance, is nearly worthless.

The Washington attorney general found that the plan was not a single-fee plan and exempted most in-wall services. The Washington attorney general also argued that Comcast’s “Service” scripts intentionally misled customers by claiming that their plans covered more than they paid.

The lawsuit claimed that Comcast violated the Cable Communications Act by using video activity data, even though it withheld personally identifiable information. A similar lawsuit was filed against the company in Philadelphia in March 2018, and in Michigan in May 2018. The complaint claimed that the cable company violated the Cable Communication Act by tracking the Internet browsing habits of its subscribers and storing them for advertising purposes. Many members of Congress, along with the consumer protection agency, believe that the cable industry is overly centralized and that the corporation is too big to regulate.

The DOJ and the government are backing Comcast in the lawsuit. The DOJ has filed briefs on behalf of Comcast.

The lower court has allowed the case to move forward and urged the Supreme Court to take the ruling of the Ninth Circuit. The lower court used a “motivating factor” test and a “but for” causation standard. Thus, to prove discrimination, Entertainment Studios would have to demonstrate that it was the reason for the discrimination.

A Washington state attorney general found that Comcast’s $4.99 monthly “Service Protection Plan” was a near-worthless program that did not cover most in-wall service calls. It also failed to cover work that required fishing in the wall. Therefore, a potential claim for damages based on racial discrimination must prove the discrimination was intentional. If the case is dismissed, the DOJ is likely to argue that the state attorney general’s ruling is invalid.

In his opinion, the judge correctly dismissed the lawsuit, but the lawsuit has not been settled yet.

The National Association of African American-Owned Media and Entertainment Studios Networks filed an appeal and are pursuing the case against Comcast. Although Comcast has not yet responded to the complaint, it is still a great place to start with your discrimination claim. If you are interested in a Comcast lawsuit, you can contact her and learn more about it.

If you are a Comcast customer, you can learn more about the company’s practices by reading the news article mentioned above. The Justices’ decision explains the reasoning behind their ruling. The lawsuit claims that the company failed to follow Louisiana law when it drafted its Service Protection Plan. However, that is not the case. The Justices have rejected the complaint because it is based on race discrimination. Hence, the suit is now a part of the federal court’s litigation against Comcast.

In the lawsuit against Comcast, the plaintiffs claim that the company has misrepresented the fact that it is not discriminating against customers based on race.

In addition, the plaintiffs’ attorneys argue that the law requires the company to give the customer the right to choose his or her attorney. This is a legal action against the cable company. If you’re a minority or have been discriminated against because of your race or gender, you can sue Comcast for violating the law.

The lawsuit alleges that Comcast discriminated against black customers. The company did not offer fair compensation to the employees who had been discriminated against. The plaintiffs’ lawyers claim that their clients were harmed because of this discrimination. But, the DOJ did not cite the case in its briefs. The Justice Department argues that the lawsuit was not based on race. And the DOJ urged the Supreme Court to focus on the lower court’s findings, as opposed to what the lower courts had done.

You May Also Like

More From Author

+ There are no comments

Add yours