Summary
Class-action law suits alleging tying arrangements between cable programmers and cable operators fail to acknowledge that cable operators are also subject to the same lack of choice that consumers allege in their suits. Given the growing alternatives for distribution as well as the creation of video programming, cable operators have no choice but to accept the packages offered by cable programmers.
Analysis
Cable operators have been on the receiving end of various inquiries and pressure from Congress, consumer groups, and local governments on the issue of a la carte distribution of cable programming. The impact of this lawsuit, filed on behalf of consumers in the federal district court in Los Angeles, should be minimal. The court's preference to to defer to an administrative agenciy's expertise, in this case the Federal Communications Commission, may work to minimize any impact from this suit. In addition, even if the court were to address the issue during litigation, the court would be hard pressed to find where federal statute calls for the provision of expanded basic services on an a la carte basis. It will also be difficult for plaintiffs to show that cable programmers have a monopoly over content, or more specifically content creation. A showing on the part of the plaintiffs that cable programming competitors have no access to the tied service market is also necessary. If anything, all this suit may do is force the FCC to come out with a definitive decision on the issue.
