Cox Renews Push to Affirm Reversal of Set-Top Jury Verdict
The assertion that Cox violated antitrust laws with set-top box rental policies "rests on sleight of hand," equating that customers in Oklahoma City couldn't access two-way cable services without a two-way set-top to a refusal by Cox to sell such…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
services, Cox said in a reply brief (in Pacer) Thursday in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Class-action plaintiffs Richard Healy et al. are appealing (see 1603010016) a U.S. District judge's 2015 overturning of a $6.31 million jury verdict against Cox for its set-top rental policies (see 1511130005). The company said the District Court erred in rejecting its proposed jury instructions that would have focused on whether the firm deprived consumers of any choices they otherwise would have had in the set-top market and in giving instructions requested by the plaintiff letting the jury find coercion and foreclosure "purely on the basis that a two-way [set-top] is technologically necessary to access certain cable services." Cox said if the court reverses the District Court's decision, it should be entitled to a new trial using proper instructions. Counsel for Healy and the others didn't comment Friday. Oral argument isn't scheduled.