Tillage v. Comcast Corporation

Background

Charles Tillage and Loomis were Comcast customers who brought claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, along with breach-of-contract claims. They alleged that Comcast promised flat-rate prices for cable and internet services but did not disclose the Broadcast TV Fee and Regional Sports Fee, or that those fees could increase during the contract, until after they were committed to their plans.

Statutory claims

The court held that a reasonable jury could find that both plaintiffs suffered economic injury because their service plans cost more than they expected. The court also found that a jury could find Comcast made material misrepresentations by omission about the monthly prices and that the statements caused the plaintiffs’ losses.

For Tillage, the record showed that the written agreement did not bear his signature and was available through a link in confirmation emails. The court found fact questions about whether he assented to the agreement and whether Comcast disclosed the fees before he was practically committed to the plan. His first billing statement disclosed the fees before the end of his cancellation period, but the court found that a jury could nevertheless conclude the disclosure came too late to eliminate reasonable reliance on the earlier price statement.

For Loomis, the record showed that his name appeared on the agreement and that the option to accept its terms appeared to have been selected. But Loomis testified that he did not recall entering his name or affirmatively accepting the agreement, and the representative’s instructions did not explain that he was signing or agreeing to contract terms. The court held that these circumstances created a genuine factual dispute about whether he consented to the agreement and whether the fees were disclosed before he signed up.

Breach-of-contract claims

The court granted Comcast summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claims. It held that the written agreement disclosed both challenged fees and stated that they could increase during the contract term. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that their contracts consisted only of statements made in chats and emails with customer-service representatives. Because the written agreement required payment of the fees in addition to the advertised top-line price, Comcast’s charging those fees was not a breach of contract.

Disposition

The court denied Comcast’s motion for summary judgment as to Tillage’s and Loomis’s statutory claims and granted the motion as to their breach-of-contract claims. Judge Vince Chhabria did not resolve the disputed factual questions underlying the statutory claims; the order leaves those questions for a jury.