No winner in Cablevision v. Verizon

Cablevision Systems Corp. v. Verizon New York Inc., —
F.Supp.3d —-, 2015 WL 4758072, No. 15–CV–456 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2015)
(magistrate judge)
 
Cablevision and Verizon sought to enjoin each other’s comparative
ads; the court denied both cross-motions for preliminary injunction. 
 
Verizon’s top three tiers, 150/150 upload/download Mbps,
300/300 Mbps, and 500/500 Mbps, all provide faster download speeds than
Cablevision’s fastest plan, and all five FiOS plans offer faster upload speeds
than any of Cablevision’s offerings, though a very small proportion of Verizon
customers subscribe to the top three speed plans.  The customer’s router constrains wireless
internet speed, like the nozzle on the end of a garden hose.  Verizon offers, at additional cost, the FiOS
Quantum Gateway router, which can support “throughput” speeds up to the fastest
FiOS tier (500/500Mbps). Thus, it advertises that FiOS provides the “fastest
WiFi available from any provider.”
 
Initially, it predicated its claim on a 2014 router study
that tested the FiOS router against another of other competing devices, but
“notably” not Cablevision’s router.  In a
second study, Verizon’s router outperformed Cablevision, “though in certain
instances by a narrow margin.”  However,
comparative router speed, standing alone, had little meaning.  After the second study, Verizon continued to
advertise “Fastest WiFi,” but based the claim on “Verizon’s combination of the
FiOS 500/500 Mbps Internet service tier with the FiOS Quantum Gateway router.”
 
FiOS did offer a faster connection once the router was
connected, especially with its more expensive plans.  Cablevision contended that WiFi speed,
technically speaking, “is the speed of that communication from a router to a
device such as a laptop or tablet.” But internet connection “is a common, if not
preeminent, WiFi application,” and may be used as a shortcut not only refer to
the WiFi itself but also to a wired connection to the internet accessed via
WiFi.  Verizon rejoined that consumers
understand the term primarily in the context of a wireless connection to the
internet, with evidence that included Cablevision’s own FAQ.
 
The judge found that, regardless of the technical
definition, consumers commonly understand WiFi to mean a wireless connection to
the internet. “[C]onsumers paying for WiFi are likely to be more concerned with
the speed provided by their Internet Service Provider, which permits them to
download music, movies, games and the like, rather than the theoretical
capability of the supplied router under laboratory conditions.”  Thus, there was no likely success on the
merits at this stage. 
 
Cablevision argued that Verizon’s earlier use of a router
study to support its claims meant that Verizon had picked its definition of
router speed and couldn’t change that definition in subsequent ads.  But the court saw these ads as distinct from
the older ads, and Verizon had discontiuned the ads with an “erroneous”
definition of speed, making relief as to them moot.
 
Meanwhile, Cablevision promoted that it offers subscribers
access to a network of “1.1 million hotspots.” What this meant was 65,000
outdoor public routers, about 100,000 routers located in small and medium
businesses, and roughly 1 million routers located in the homes of its
residential customers. Each “smart” router installed by Cablevision includes a
second channel—a “dual SSID”—which provides a public access point for all Cablevision
customers, unless it’s disabled. These routers provide WiFi service at distances
of 135’ or more.

Verizon argued that these hotspots weren’t truly public, because they came from
private homes, and numerous ads suggested that they were in public places.  Cablevision’s website contained a claim that
it maintained hotspots at “1 million public locations like train stations,
restaurants, cafes and parks,” which would clearly be misleading.  Cablevision agreed to discontinue making this
claim, absent a change of circumstances, “which change would presumably involve
the construction of 900,000 or so hotspots in public locations.”
 
Cablevision also claimed to offer a “better data network”
than Verizon, and stated that Verizon “two-times” it customers by charging for
cellular data usage from customers that have already paid for WiFi access at
home. It was undisputed that, when connected to WiFi, mobile devices can access
data faster than when connected via cellular towers. But it was also beyond
dispute that Verizon’s cellular towers provided far broader geographic coverage
than Cablevision’s WiFi network. And Verizon did impose separate data charges
on its customers, under certain circumstances, for data obtained via cellular
towers.
 
In addition, Cablevision recently launched the Freewheel, an
all-WiFi communication device. Freewheel is a Motorola Moto–G model smartphone
configured to function only using WiFi connections rather than traditional
cellular telephone towers. This is a relatively low-cost mobile device that
can, where WiFi is available, make and receive phone calls, text and surf the
Internet.  Verizon argued that references
to the device as a “phone” and comparisons to cellphones and smartphones were
misleading. Internal Cablevision marketing research—focus group studies of
preliminary Freewheel ads—suggested that certain viewers could be confused
about the nature of the device and the extent of the “coverage” of the Cablevision
WiFi network.
 
The court turned to images to show the “gestalt” of the ads,
which characterized Freewheel “as something new and different from a cellular
phone.”
 

Cablevision argued that Verizon delayed too long to get a
preliminary injunction.  The judge agreed
that Verizon’s “inordinate” delay of more than six months as to all the
non-Freewheel ads weighed “heavily” against a finding of irreparable harm.
 
1.1 million hotspots: Verizon argued literal falsity based
on Cablevision’s failure to disclose that 87% of the hotspots emanate from
residential locations.  But the ability
to use the WiFi at distances of 135′ or more meant that “signals from
residential routers can be accessed from the street or sidewalk,” which are
public places.  Thus the judge found
neither express nor implicit falsity.
 
“Better data network”: “better” did not necessarily mean
geographic coverage.  A WiFi-connected
consumer would get faster downloads than she’d get from a cell tower.  The multiplicity of meanings made “better”
puffery.
 
Freewheel: Verizon argued that, to the extent that
Cablevision called the Freewheel a “phone” or “smartphone,” those statements
were literally false.  However, the
Freewheel actually was a “Motorola Moto–G model smartphone.” The fact that it
was configured only to work on WiFi didn’t change its “essence” as a telephone,
just as “phone” can mean cell phones, “historical” (ouch!) landline telephones
or cordless handsets. So there was no literal falsity.
 
The main argument was that consumers would think they were
getting cellular phone service from the Freewheel.  This was an implied falsehood claim, though,
and Verizon didn’t have evidence of deception. 
(Claims that Freewheel was “better than cellular” were mere
puffery.)  The Cablevision focus groups
weren’t enough, even though the company conducting the work for Cablevision
warned that “[c]omparisons to cellular in messaging exposed during the groups
helped create the perception that Freewheel service (including talk/text) will
be ubiquitous given respondents’ near universal coverage experience with cell
service for talk/text/data[.]”  While focus
group information isn’t always reliable, especially when it favors the party
who conducted it, the judge didn’t need to decide here because the ads shown to
the focus groups were preliminary drafts, to which substantial changes were
made. 

 
Those changes included specific
qualifications of the text to make clear that “it’s a WiFi phone” rather than a
“cell phone,” and a checklist indicating people for whom the phone might be
appropriate.  Thus, the focus groups
didn’t show that the ads actually run were deceptive.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/1fkn6N8

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s