Slingbox’s addition of ads wasn’t deceptive

In re Sling Media Slingbox Advertising Litig., 202 F. Supp. 3d
352 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)
Plaintiffs sued Sling under California law, and in the
alternative under the consumer-protection laws of forty-seven other
jurisdictions, including under New York General Business Law § 349, based on
Sling’s addition of ads to its Slingbox service allowing consumers to watch
their home TVs from internet-connected devices. In late 2014, for the first
time, Sling began adding its own ads “after product startup,” as well as
“alongside streamed … content.” Plaintiffs were unhappy and sued for
deceptive failure to disclose that ads would be added.
Although the EULA said the agreement was governed by
California law, that didn’t give Slingbox purchasers outside of California the
right to bring California consumer-protection claims. New York plaintiffs had
to proceed under GBL § 349.  This
requires the plaintiff to show a consumer-oriented act or practice that is
deceptive or materially misleading, as well as injury.  There were no affirmative misstatements
alleged. Omissions are actionable “where the business alone possesses material
information that is relevant to the consumer and fails to provide this
information.” But plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to make it
plausible that Sling possessed knowledge of a plan to disseminate advertising
at the time they purchased their Slingboxes.

Nor did the complaint sufficiently allege materiality.
According to the complaint, consumers buy Slingboxes to: (1) watch live or
recorded programming that they have already purchased from a cable or satellite
provider; (2) on another device; (3) anywhere in the world.  The complaint didn’t allege facts about the
Sling ads—how often they show up, can they be skipped or otherwise avoided,
etc. The complaint didn’t even allege that, at the time of purchase, plaintiffs
knew they were getting an ad-free experience. 
Finally, there were no allegations of actual injury, and adding ads “may
be beneficial, detrimental or of no consequence based on consumers’ personal
tastes, likes, or dislikes.”  Plaintiffs
argued they wouldn’t have bought the Slingboxes or would have paid less for
them if they’d known the truth, but that isn’t enough under New York law.  Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc., 94
N.Y.2d 43, 56, 698 N.Y.S.2d 615, 720 N.E.2d 892 (1999) (stating consumers who
buy a product that they would not have purchased absent deceptive conduct,
without more, have not suffered injury).

from Blogger

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: Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s