An Oklahoma jury awarded Cox Communications subscribers $6.31 million in their lawsuit alleging the cable company illegally made rental of a Cox set-top box a prerequisite for accessing all content and features in its Premium Cable subscriptions. The Friday verdict followed a two-week trial in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City. Similar Premium Cable class-action subscriber suits filed in 2009 were consolidated into one case. In their verdict, the jurors said Cox had sold Premium Cable in the Oklahoma City market only on condition that subscribers also lease a set-top box, that Cox had sufficient market power there to let it restrain trade in the set-top box market, that the tying "foreclosed a substantial volume of commerce" in Oklahoma City to other set-top box sellers or potential sellers, and that the plaintiffs were injured because of the tying arrangement. Cox filed a motion asking for the jury verdict to be overturned because it "did not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for plaintiff." In a statement, Cox said it was "disappointed in the verdict, but gratified that the jury recognized most of the damages plaintiffs were seeking were unwarranted" and that its motion stood on "solid grounds."

The Supreme Court shot down a pair of appeals by Dish Network and AT&T's DirecTV on how states tax their services versus how cable subscribers are taxed. The justices denied the direct-broadcast satellite (DBS) companies' petitions for certiorari Monday after meeting in conference Friday. The companies sued Tennessee Commissioner of Revenue Richard Roberts and the Massachusetts Department of Revenue over those states' tax structures: Tennessee in 2003 over its pay-TV sales tax regime, which gives cable subscribers a tax exemption on the first $15 of their bills but no such break to satellite-TV subscribers, and Massachusetts seven years later after the state enacted a satellite-only excise tax. The DBS companies filed writs of certiorari after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court sided with the state in an appeal and the Tennessee Supreme Court declined to review the case (see 1510220016).

A couple is suing Apple for $5 million, alleging it misled consumers about extra data usage through Wi-Fi Assist, a new feature that was part of the update to iOS 9, said the complaint, seeking class-action status, filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose Friday. The lawsuit alleges Apple violated California's unfair competition and false advertising laws and accuses the company of negligent misrepresentation. Wi-Fi Assist is a default setting that allows the phone to switch from Wi-Fi to data usage when the wireless connection is weak or unreliable, the suit said. Apple never told consumers that this function was there, leading consumers to go over their data caps and have to pay higher bills, the suit alleges. Apple issued a statement Oct. 2 telling people how Wi-Fi Assist works and how to deactivate the default setting, the suit said. Apple didn't comment.

Some two dozen retailers and online distributors of USB hubs, including big names like Amazon, Belkin, Best Buy, Office Depot, Staples and Walmart, are in violation of U.S. patent 5,675,811, which describes a “method for transmitting information over an intelligent low power serial bus,” alleged the patent owner, Minero Digital, an Allen, Texas, firm, in a federal complaint. The patent was granted in October 1997 and originally assigned to General Magic, the now-defunct developer of personal communications handhelds, said the complaint, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Marshall, Texas. Representatives of the defendants didn’t comment.

Cox Communications sued Tempe, Arizona, and Mayor Mark Mitchell over its new video regulations that Cox says unfairly skew in favor of Google Fiber. The lawsuit, filed Sept. 14 in U.S. District Court in Phoenix, seeks a declaration that the city's ordinance and licensing of Google Fiber as a video services provider rather than a cable provider is illegal, and an injunction stopping the city from giving Google Fiber a license for a video services system and right-of-way use agreement. Cox said Google Fiber's proposed video service to the city "is indistinguishable" from Cox's cable service there, but video service providers are exempt from the "substantial statutory and regulatory obligations" put on cable operators. The city altered its codes in December to create a license category for video service providers, and gave such a license in July to Google Fiber, waiving such standard requirements as underground construction. Rules on service standards, consumer information protection and billing requirements also don't apply to Google Fiber, though they apply to cable operators, and Google Fiber won't have to comply with federal emergency alert system regulations under its license, Cox said. The city declined to comment Friday.

RIAA disagrees with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling Monday in Lenz v. Universal, a spokeswoman said in an email, speaking on behalf of Universal Music Group (UMG). A three-judge 9th Circuit panel ruled that U.S. District Court in San Francisco was justified in ruling against motions from UMG and other parties for a summary judgment in the case. The 9th Circuit’s ruling also said the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) “requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification (see 1509140070). RIAA, one of the parties supporting UMG in the case, disagrees with the 9th Circuit’s “conclusion about the DMCA and the burden the court places upon copyright holders before sending takedown notices,” a spokeswoman said. “But we are pleased that the Ninth Circuit made it clear that a court may not second guess a copyright owner’s good faith belief that the fair use does not excuse infringing conduct.”

NAB and Sirius XM were among the nine entities or groups of law professors to file proposed amicus briefs with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals through Thursday on behalf of Pandora in the company's appeal of a February U.S. District Court ruling in Los Angeles. The lower court said Pandora had to pay performance royalties on pre-1972 recordings owned by Flo & Eddie, who own the copyright to The Turtles' “Happy Together” and the rest of that band's music library. Sirius XM and the other six filers on behalf of Pandora argued that District Judge Philip Gutierrez incorrectly interpreted California copyright law. The other pro-Pandora filers included the Association for Recorded Sound Collections, Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge and three groups of law school professors. Pandora and six of the nine filers previously filed in the 2nd Circuit on Sirius XM's behalf in that company's appeal of earlier U.S. District Court rulings in New York that relied on state copyright law in finding Flo & Eddie had a right to performance royalties on the Turtles' pre-1972 recordings (see 1508060052). Gutierrez essentially said the statute is "a living servitude on not only intangible products but also previously sold goods, one which would grow over time as new rights evolved,” CCIA said in its proposed brief. Gutierrez's “creation of a performance right in contravention of the Legislature’s plain intent violates the settled principle that where, as here, the declaration of a right would dramatically alter the common law and affect the interests of competing stakeholders, it must be a matter of legislative judgment and discretion,” Sirius XM said in its proposed brief. “Even assuming that California may regulate the use of pre-1972 sound recordings within its own borders, it cannot regulate in such a manner that prohibits the use of such sound recordings elsewhere in the nation,” CCIA said. “In such circumstances, the burden on interstate commerce -- including potential commerce involving members of amicus CCIA -- would be 'clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.'” Gutierrez's ruling “creates an unbounded set of exclusive rights never recognized by California or Congress, and thus risks creating problematic restrictions on valuable speech activities,” Public Knowledge said in its proposed brief.

LightSquared, Deere and Trimble seemingly are edging closer to settling interference claims, though LightSquared and Garmin remain at loggerheads, according to a transcript of a pretrial conference Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan before Judge Richard Berman. The satellite company "has had several helpful discussions with Deere over the past few weeks with more scheduled for this week," LightSquared counsel Winn Allen of Kirkland & Ellis told Berman, saying Deere "has shown a willingness to work ... on technical and regulatory issues" and that the two companies could come to a settlement agreement "sometime within the next few weeks." While a Deere settlement is not imminent, Deere attorney Kenneth Schacter of Morgan Lewis said the two "have had some constructive discussions ... and we are considering what we've heard." A settlement with Garmin "does not appear likely at this time," and the GPS company hasn't shown enthusiasm for a LightSquared-proposed idea of a mediator, Allen said. Garmin "would be delighted to settle this case" but hasn't seen any technical information from LightSquared that could be the basis of that solution, said Philip Douglas of Jones Day, representing Garmin. "The problem, I suspect, is that Garmin's devices are different from those at issue with Deere and Trimble," with its aeronautical navigation and landing devices presenting "more serious technical problems," Douglas said, adding that the company would rather have guidance from the Federal Aviation Administration than come to a separate agreement on its own with LightSquared, since other aeronautical navigation equipment makers could have issues. Berman scheduled a follow-up status conference for Oct. 8. LightSquared sued the three companies and the U.S. GPS Industry Council in 2013 after they raised concerns that LightSquared's planned ground-and-satellite-based LTE broadband network could interfere with GPS signals in adjacent spectrum space, which lead to the FCC revoking the company’s spectrum license, ultimately forcing it into bankruptcy.

The FTC agreed to settle deceptive advertising charges against Machinima, an online entertainment network, it said in a news release Wednesday. Machinima allegedly paid “influencers” to post YouTube videos endorsing Microsoft’s Xbox One system and several games, but the influencers didn’t disclose that they were paid for their reviews, the release said. Under the proposed settlement, Machinima is prohibited from similar deceptive conduct and is required to ensure influencers clearly disclose when they're compensated, it said. “When people see a product touted online, they have a right to know whether they’re looking at an authentic opinion or a paid marketing pitch,” said FTC Consumer Protection Bureau Director Jessica Rich. The vote to issue the complaint and accept the proposed consent order for public comment was 5-0. Comments on the proposed settlement will be accepted until Oct. 2, after which a decision on making the consent order final will be made.

RadioShack creditors that collectively are still owed more than half a billion dollars from the chain’s bankruptcy liquidation (see 1502060023) aren’t walking away quietly without their money, they said in a breach of fiduciary duty complaint filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Fort Worth, Texas. The complaint “arises out of a scheme” in which Standard General, the New York hedge fund that bought RadioShack, “delayed actions that could have preserved significant value in the company,” the filing said. Standard General deliberately did so “in order to orchestrate a change of control transaction” to acquire “an insolvent RadioShack at the lowest possible cost,” and acted with “the complicity of RadioShack’s conflicted CEO,” Joseph Magnacca, and the chain’s “faithless board of directors,” all of whom are named as defendants, the complaint said. “A mere four months” after Standard General bought RadioShack, the chain “met its inevitable fate of chapter 11 in the Delaware bankruptcy court,” it said. “The company’s crash-landing into bankruptcy involved immediate closure of half of RadioShack’s operations and handed over the company’s most valuable assets to Standard General less than 60 days later.” The creditors -- none is named individually in the complaint -- brought the case to expose how Standard General “came to control the senior-most debt of the company” and how it even got RadioShack, through Magnacca, to pay for Standard General’s planned acquisition, the filing said. While Standard General and its key investment officer, Soohyung Kim, “masterminded the scheme,” it couldn't have been “executed without the participation of a banking institution with the financial prowess to fund the various moving pieces," the complaint said. Wells Fargo, also named as a defendant, “willingly fulfilled” that role, it said. Representatives of Kim, Magnacca, Standard General, Wells Fargo and the various other firms and individuals named as defendants didn’t comment on the complaint. The case number is 4:15-cv-00652.