Charter Dockets Appeal of Order Giving Fla. Customer Free Goods, Services
Attorneys for Charter Communications and Spectrum filed a civil appeal statement Monday at the 11th Circuit U.S. Appeals Court (docket 22-13931) in their appeal of an Oct. 17 order in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida granting summary judgment to…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
a plaintiff who successfully sued to force the company to supply him with free equipment and services. Plaintiff Harry Jacobs was a shareholder in Sanlando Cablevision when Storer Communications acquired it in 1983. As part of the acquisition, Sanlando and Storer created a lifetime agreement for the benefit of Jacobs and other named beneficiaries to “receive and/or continue to receive free of charge each and every product, service, system or item of rental equipment whatsoever presently offered or offered in the future in the Central Florida area by Sanlando Cablevision” or its successor companies. As successor to that agreement, Spectrum provided Jacobs with free cable TV, home phone and high-speed internet services and related products since 2016. Jacobs’ account was “consistent” with those of other customers who received complimentary devices and services, but he wasn’t receiving all channels or the fastest internet speeds that Spectrum offered, nor was he receiving the mobile phones and wireless service that Spectrum offers paying customers. Jacobs sued after Spectrum refused his requests to receive all the channels and fastest internet speeds, plus the mobile phones and wireless service. Spectrum argued that cellphones, mobile service and levels of internet service are not referenced in Jacobs’ original agreement with Sanlando and Storer. Jacobs countered, and the court agreed, that the agreement was broad and inclusive, covering all items requested.