Vizio sold 94 models of older smart TVs to millions of consumers since 2012 without telling them they risked losing YouTube functionality through an upgrade of the streaming service's application programming interface, alleged a complaint seeking class-action status. In 2013, Vizio began switching from flash-based APIs to newer HTML5-based systems that “still provide access to YouTube,” said the complaint (in Pacer), filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, Washington. Vizio “promoted, through advertising and marketing that educated and informed the consuming public, its Affected Smart TVs as a means to access YouTube,” said the complaint, which alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation. “At no time prior to 2013 did Defendant disclaim that continued use of the YouTube app, for the life of its Affected Smart TVs, could or would end.” The end came this year after YouTube publicized a notice that older TVs with flash-based APIs would no longer run YouTube starting June 26, said the complaint. Vizio “has offered no remedy” to the millions of consumers who have lost YouTube access on their legacy TVs, it said. Vizio’s “advice to consumer complainants related to loss of YouTube functionality” is to suggest they buy a new smart TV or purchase an external “streaming device” such as Google Chromecast, it said. “Defendant is using the loss of YouTube functionality on its Affected Smart TVs to continue to profit off of consumers who, like Plaintiff, have suffered harm.” The complaint names only Vizio as a defendant, and its representatives didn’t comment Wednesday. Lawyers for plaintiff Cody Brenner, a Tacoma-area resident, didn’t comment on whether they plan additional complaints against other TV makers.

Showtime's class-action waiver in its terms of use is "buried" behind hyperlinks on the company's website, with none indicating the user is agreeing to a class waiver, plaintiff Victor Mallh said in a docket 1:17-cv-06549 memorandum (in Pacer) filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. Mallh, of New York, filed the putative class-action complaint in August after paying to watch the Mayweather vs. McGregor pay-per-view boxing match, unable to watch much due to Showtime technical problems. The memo, in opposition to Showtime's motion (in Pacer) earlier this month to compel arbitration, said the hyperlinks were all gray on a black background and indistinguishable from the rest of the site, and the class waiver doesn't appear until the 15th page of a hyperlink. The programmer didn't comment. It's facing similar litigation in federal courts in Oregon (see 1708280046) and California.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ought to rebuff Minnesota's "power grab" of trying to regulate Charter Communications' Spectrum Voice VoIP service, Free State Foundation blogged Friday. Being an information service, as the lower court ruled, largely pre-empts Spectrum Voice from state regulation, FSF said, saying previous court decisions support treating VoIP as a Title I information service. It said transitions to next-generation technology have been boosted by "the overwhelming movement in the states toward non-regulation of VoIP." The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission didn't comment, but has argued there's no substantive difference between Charter's traditional and IP-based voice offerings (see 1708290028).

Oral argument is scheduled for Tuesday at 10:30 a.m. in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the 3-year-old complaint by the Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies that the car infotainment systems marketed by Ford and General Motors violate the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) (see 1407310086). The automakers are asking U.S. District Judge Ketanji Jackson to grant them summary judgment in the case on grounds that their infotainment systems are not digital audio recording devices as defined in the AHRA.

Lions Gate Entertainment and defendants Ameritrade and Havas Worldwide settled Lions Gate's copyright and trademark infringement claim involving Ameritrade/Havas use of the media company's "Nobody Puts Baby in a Corner" trademark (see 1607120017), according to a docket 2:15-cv-05024 stipulation to dismiss (in Pacer) filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

Berkeley, California, officials cheered the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling not to rehear its April decision upholding the city’s ordinance requiring retailers to inform prospective cellphone buyers that carrying their devices in certain ways can cause exposure to RF radiation exceeding federal limits. “The city carefully crafted the ordinance to further a substantial government interest,” City Attorney Farimah Brown said. “We are very pleased with the result.” CTIA, which sued the city, said Wednesday it won’t back down from asserting First Amendment rights (see 1710110069).

A divided federal appeals court denied en banc rehearing of its April decision upholding a Berkeley, California, ordinance requiring retailers to inform prospective cellphone buyers that carrying their devices in certain ways can cause exposure to RF radiation exceeding federal limits (see 1704240041). Judges William Fletcher and Morgan Christen supported the Wednesday opinion, while Judges Michelle Friedland and Kim Wardlaw dissented. A majority of non-recused active judges failed to vote for rehearing. Fletcher and Christen said they didn’t want to create a circuit split with the D.C., 1st, 2nd and 6th circuits: Such splits “are generally to be avoided” and the other four courts “got it right.” Wardlaw said the panel majority applied the wrong legal standard when it cited 1985's Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel. “We should have taken this case en banc to clarify that Zauderer’s rational basis standard applies only when the government compels speech to prevent consumer deception,” Wardlaw said. “By allowing the opinion to stand, we have condoned the panel majority’s deference to the City of Berkeley’s well-intentioned, but unconstitutional, incursion into First Amendment rights.” CTIA "will continue to assert that the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing private companies to promote misleading and inaccurate opinions," a spokeswoman said. Berkeley didn't comment.

The complaint brought by the daughter of the late Brazilian artist​ Lygia Pape accusing LG of using her mother’s artwork to promote the launch of the K20 V smartphone without her permission (see 1706300034) was settled out of court, said a dismissal order (in Pacer) signed Thursday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn in Manhattan. Paula Pape repeatedly rejected LG’s requests to use her mother’s original artwork, but LG went ahead anyway and ran “a derivative image” created from the artwork in its consumer packaging, advertising and promotions for the K20 V, plus on the wallpaper of the actual device, said her June 29 complaint, which she later expanded to include AT&T, Cricket Wireless, MobilePCS, T-Mobile and Verizon as defendants. Settlement terms weren't disclosed. Representatives for LG and Pape didn’t comment Friday.

The treble damages awarded plaintiffs in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint against Dish Network were neither excessive nor meaningfully duplicative, U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles of Greensboro, North Carolina, said Tuesday, rejecting Dish attempts to set aside the verdict (see 1702140010). A docket 1:14-CV-333 order (in Pacer) said Dish had ample opportunity during the litigation to bring up that it thought any claim was the same as the claims brought by the FTC and four states, including North Carolina (see 1706060069). The company didn't comment Thursday.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision last month affirming a lower court's overturning of a jury's decision that Cox Communications illegally tied cable services to set-top box rentals (see 1709200027) conflicts with previous 10th Circuit decisions, appellant Richard Healy said Tuesday in a docket 15-6218 petition (in Pacer) for rehearing en banc. The cable operator didn't comment Thursday.