LifeLock agreed to pay $100 million to settle FTC charges that the company failed to act to protect users' data and continued to make deceptive claims about its identity theft protection services, violating a 2010 federal court order (see 1507210041). “That consumers paid [LifeLock] for help in protecting their sensitive personal information makes the charges in this case particularly troubling,” FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez said in a statement Thursday. The commission approved the order 3-1, with Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen dissenting. Under the settlement, $68 million may be used to reimburse customers in a class-action lawsuit against the company and in settlements state attorneys general have negotiated on behalf of other consumers. It can't be used for any administrative or legal costs of the lawsuit. An FTC spokesman said the agency will use the remaining $32 million to provide redress to other consumers who weren't part of the class-action suit or state AG settlements. In a separate statement, Ohlhausen said the "record lacks a clear and convincing evidence that LifeLock failed to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program designed to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of consumers' personal information." She said LifeLock's compliance with the payment card data security standard and other data security certifications undermined FTC staff's ability to clear the "high threshold" and succeed on the July contempt motion, which alleged LifeLock violated the 2010 order. LifeLock, which neither confirmed nor denied the allegations, said in a statement the allegations "are related to advertisements that we no longer run and policies that are no longer in place. The settlement does not require us to change any of our current products or practices. Furthermore, there is no evidence that LifeLock has ever had any of its customers' data stolen, and the FTC did not allege otherwise." The company said it has made "significant investments in our people, processes and systems" in recent years to address more complex and prevalent ID threats. The FTC said the settlement is the largest obtained by the commission in enforcing an order.

Dish Network's argument for a delay in certifying the class in a lawsuit focuses on an "attenuated and nebulous" argument that the Supreme Court's pending decision in a separate case could have some bearing, the plaintiffs in Ernst et al. v. Dish and Sterling Infosystems said in an opposition memorandum of law filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The 2012 suit (case No. 1:12-cv-08794-LGS) alleges Dish and background check company Sterling violate the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in their use of credit reports to do background checks on prospective employees or subcontractors. Dish earlier this month filed a motion to stay the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, saying the Spokeo vs. Robbins case now before the Supreme Court -- which also involves alleged FCRA violations -- will affect class certification and court jurisdiction issues. But Dish has litigated the case for months with Spokeo pending, and "only now, facing an adverse decision on class certification" does the Supreme Court matter come up, the plaintiffs said. For Spokeo to overlap into the Dish case, they said, "the Court would be required to issue a sweeping decision extending well beyond the issues presented and to overturn well-established precedent regarding informational injuries."

U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle in St. Paul, Minnesota, stayed Best Buy’s complaint against its longtime appliance recycler after a Washington State court ordered the bankrupt recycler into receivership, Kyle’s order said. Under Washington receivership law, “an automatic stay of proceedings” against the recycler, Jaco Environmental, is “therefore applicable,” Kyle’s order said. Jaco, headquartered in Bothell, Washington, breached several agreements with Best Buy by failing to pay the retailer hundreds of thousands of dollars it owed in “rebates” for hauling away and recycling discarded refrigerators and freezers, Best Buy alleged in an August complaint (see 1508180060). The “unprecedented and prolonged drop in scrap prices” figured prominently in Jaco’s inability to pay Best Buy the fees it owed, Jaco President Michael Jacobsen emailed us that month, suggesting Best Buy and Jaco were in settlement negotiations and that a “fair and final resolution" was expected soon (see 1508190041). But the case against Jaco remained active until Kyle issued his stay order, and Seattle-area newspapers reported that Jaco abruptly closed its doors just after Thanksgiving. Jacobsen and other Jaco representatives didn’t comment.

DirecTV is seeking more time to argue for partial summary judgment in a legal fight with the FTC. A joint stipulation and proposed order filed Tuesday by the company and the FTC in U.S. District Court in San Francisco said that due to additional discovery that will take place, both sides have agreed DirecTV should have roughly an additional month to file a reply brief, with the new deadline being Jan. 25. A hearing on DirecTV's motion for partial summary judgment would then happen on Feb. 25. The FTC sued DirecTV in March, alleging it wasn't properly conveying to prospective customers they faced early cancellation fees if they sign up and then quit the service before two years (see 1503110042).

Both DirecTV and the FTC saw motions on discovery upheld in a legal clash over early cancellation fees charged subscribers. U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James of San Francisco on Thursday granted a DirecTV motion to compel further responses from the FTC on research, surveys or tests the agency did on DirecTV advertising, its computation of claim for restitution, and the methods used by and results of investigations of the FTC into the rationale behind consumer complaints aimed at DirecTV ads. James also granted an FTC request for draft ads that DirecTV had objected to. And James denied without prejudice a DirecTV motion seeking discovery of communications between the FTC and all the various state attorneys general on a previous multistate agreement between the states and DirecTV, saying a pending decision by U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam of San Francisco on a motion to strike six of DirecTV's affirmative defenses could render that line of exploration moot. The FTC sued DirecTV in March, alleging the direct broadcast satellite company wasn't properly conveying to prospective customers they faced early cancellation fees if they sign up and then quit the service before two years (see 1503110042).

Nortek said it resolved an intellectual property lawsuit filed by The Chamberlain Group (CGI) last year on Nortek garage door controllers. The settlement and license agreement gives Nortek and its affiliates, including sister company GTO, a license to the CGI patents for current and future products, Nortek said Tuesday.

With a federal court having tossed out a proposed $15.5 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit against Comcast, the plaintiffs are asking for a stay as they appeal. A motion to stay -- unopposed by Comcast, according to court paperwork -- was filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia. The motion said the stay is needed because an appeal of U.S. District Judge Anita Brody's decision (see 1511060011) could result in certification of a settlement class in the case. The multidistrict litigation is a combination of 24 civil actions against Comcast consolidated in 2009, alleging the cable company wrongfully tied subscribing to its Premium Cable tier to rental of a Comcast set-top box. In her rejection of the proposed settlement earlier this month, Brody said a better model for determining who was eligible to be a member of the class was needed. In a petition for permission to appeal Brody's order filed Monday with the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the petitioners said district courts too often use "a rigid manner to prevent class certification" in cases where records might be incomplete and that such an appeal was a chance for the court "to clarify that plaintiffs in consumer class cases can meet the ascertainability threshold even when defendant companies have discarded a number of their customers' records."

Streaming TV service FilmOn X isn't eligible for a compulsory license and is liable for infringing on the copyright of CBS and other broadcasters, ruled U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Judge Rosemary Collyier in an order issued Thursday. FilmOn X could face damages of $750-$100,000 per instance of infringement, an industry attorney told us Friday. Collyier also denied a summary judgment motion filed by FilmOn X and denied one from the broadcasters without prejudice, meaning it could be filed again. The case stems from a lawsuit brought against FilmOn X in U.S. District Court in Washington before the Aereo ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. After the Aereo ruling (see 1406260071), FilmOn X argued in the D.C. Circuit and in similar cases in other venues that it was entitled to a compulsory copyright license, like a cable system. It also has been lobbying the FCC to designate it as an MVPD. U.S. District Judge George Wu ruled in Los Angeles (see 1507170024) that FilmOn X is eligible for a compulsory license, while the 2nd Circuit ruled that streaming video services aren’t eligible for such licenses. The L.A. decision was appealed to the 9th Circuit. Collyier’s opinion in the case was sealed because of sensitive information referenced in it, but the parties are to file a public version by Dec. 1, the order said. FilmOn X Attorney Ryan Baker of Baker Marquart said FilmOn is weighing its options for appealing the D.C. Circuit decision.

An appeal is planned after a federal judge overturned a $6.31 million jury verdict against Cox Communications for its set-top box rental policies. "We feel confident that the Tenth Circuit will reverse the decision and reinstate the verdict," Todd Schneider of Schneider Wallace, lead plaintiff's attorney in the case, told us in an email Friday. U.S. District Judge Robin Cauthron of Oklahoma City ruled Thursday that despite the jury verdict to the contrary earlier this month (see 1511020048), the class-action complainants failed to offer evidence that would show that the tying of a Cox Premium Cable subscription to renting of a Cox set-top box "foreclosed a substantial volume of commerce in Oklahoma City to other sellers or potential sellers of set-top boxes in the market for set-top boxes." That was one of the five elements set out in the jury instructions in order for it to find against Cox, the judge's order said. It said class-action plaintiffs Richard Healy et al "failed to offer evidence from which a jury could determine that any other manufacturer wished to sell set-top boxes at retail or that Cox had acted in a manner to prevent any other manufacturer from selling set-top boxes at retail." The plaintiffs also failed to prove, as also set out in the jury instructions, that there was any loss or injury from that tying arrangement, the judge said. Cauthron's order followed a motion by Cox to have the jury verdict overturned. In a statement Friday, Cox said its "primary goal is to provide its customers with high value video services and this victory ensures that Cox will be free to continue to provide those services in the future. We are pleased that the Court has recognized that Cox’s conduct did not violate the antitrust laws."

A federal judge rejected a proposed $15.5 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit against Comcast, saying it lacks "a reliable and administratively feasible mechanism" for figuring out who falls within the class definition. U.S. District Judge Anita Brody in Philadelphia Thursday denied a Comcast motion for certification of a settlement class and preliminary approval of class-action settlement. Comcast lacks records for most former subscribers, including any before 2010, and it needs a better model for screening out people who don't belong in the class than the one proposed, Brody said in her order. The multidistrict litigation is a combination of 24 civil actions against Comcast consolidated in 2009 and alleging the cable company wrongfully tied subscribing to its Premium Cable tier to rental of a Comcast set-top box. The proposed settlement would include all people who lived in and subscribed to Premium Cable in California, Washington or West Virginia in the class period or who subscribed to Premium Cable in any state during the class period and opted out of Comcast's arbitration clause and who paid Comcast a set-top box rental fee. The class period is Jan. 1, 2005, up to the point of the court's giving preliminary approval to a settlement agreement. While Comcast's proposed settlement includes a variety of ways for determining whether former subscribers fall within the class definition, such as use of canceled checks or old bills or credit card receipts, Brody said it was "implausible" that such evidence would show a person was both a Premium subscriber and had rented a set-top box. And relying on sworn statements alone has been previously rejected in a 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Brody said. Comcast didn't comment Friday.