Comcast Pays Out $16M In P2P Throttling Suit

eldavojohn writes "Comcast has settled out of court to the tune of $16 million in one of several ongoing P2P throttling class action lawsuits. You may be eligible for up to $16 restitution if 'you live in the United States or its Territories, have a current or former Comcast High-Speed Internet account, and either used or attempted to use Comcast service to use the Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols at any time from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008; and/or Lotus Notes to send emails any time from March 26, 2007 to October 3, 2007.' $16 million seems low. And it's too bad this was an out-of-court settlement instead of a solid precedent-setting decision for your right to use P2P applications. The settlement will probably not affect the slews of other Comcast P2P throttling suits, and it's unclear whether it will placate the FCC."

Comments

Typical!

[SirLoadALot]

Once again the lawyers are the only winners. $16 is farcical, and the total $16 million is a rounding error for Comcast -- it doesn't serve as much incentive against bad behaviour in the future.

Re:Typical!

[SirLoadALot]

Also, although I am not in Comcast's service area, if I were I don't think I would want to sign a piece of paper saying I used one or more P2P services between two dates. The MPAA and RIAA are way too aggressive to give them even a sliver of help for $16.

Re:Typical!

[Inda]

Amateur porn. Say you were downloading amateur porn. When people ask me how to download movies and music, I tell them I only use P2P for amateur porn.

Replace one taboo with another and watch the reaction you get. It is an interesting reaction because which one is worse (for the British prudes)?

People, at their own peril, take me too seriously.

Re:Typical!

[elrous0]

Not only that, but it basically immunizes them against further lawsuits on the issue. Sometimes, I think some of these class action suits are the result of a collaboration between the companies and some lawyers. The lawyers get a big payday, the companies get immunity from anymore lawsuits, and the consumer gets screwed.

Re:Typical!

[drew30319]

Although it wasn't a fine, McDonald's changed its business practices when sued for the dangerous temperature of their coffee. While the case has been the butt of many, many jokes the jokes (and vitriol) are primarily based on misinformation.

Between 1982 and 1992, over 700 people had been seriously burned by McDonald's coffee that was brewed at a temperature that was not fit for drinking; at the time they were serving coffee at a temperature of 180-190F, a temperature that can result in third-degree burns in as little as two seconds. They had already paid claims as high as $500,000 for burns resulting from these high temperatures but had apparently done nothing to change their procedures to prevent future injuries.

Enter 79-year-old Ms. Liebeck and the infamous "coffee lawsuit." In 1992 she purchased a cup of coffee at a McDonald's drive-thru; placed the cup between her knees; and removed the lid to add cream and sugar. The cup slipped, spilling the coffee onto her cotton sweatpants which absorbed the hot liquid, resulting in serious burns.(1) This brief exposure to the coffee resulted in burns over 16% of her body, 8% of which were third-degree burns requiring skin grafts on her groin, buttocks, and thighs. She was in the hospital for eight days as the result of these injuries.

She requested $20,000 from McDonald's to cover her medical bills (which were $11,000) but McDonald's only offered $800. After filing suit a third-party mediator advised settlement of $225,000 but McDonald's refused. At trial the jury found Ms. Liebeck partly responsible for her injuries (20%) with McDonald's liable for the remaining 80%. She was awarded $160,000 ($200,000 less 20%) for compensatory damages (actual damages plus injury and harm) as well as $2.7M in punitive damages (intended to punish the harming party). The jury came up with the punitive damages amount based on two day's sales of McDonald's coffee throughout the franchise.(2) The jury's intention was to send McDonald's a message in an attempt to get them to change their business practices.

It worked. Days after the verdict the coffee served by the same McDonald's location was twenty degrees cooler. Additionally the restaurant now adds cream and sugar to the coffee for you at the drive-thru, mitigating the risk of a repeat incident.

Unfortunately this "example" of how to change corporate behavior has served as a rallying cry for corporate interests. When it's the businesses that control media spin it can become difficult for individuals to properly position stories that are "pro-consumer."

I agree that $16M is unlikely to affect change at Comcast (at least to the extent that their customers would like) but feel that it's a step in the right direction. I'm one of the "affected" customers here and will take my $16 and move on; nothing would preclude me from filing suit if they were to recommence (or continue?) their behavior in the future.

--------

(1) Despite common belief to the contrary, Ms. Liebeck was not the driver of the car. She was a passenger. Additionally, the driver, her grandson, actually pulled the car over and came to a stop to allow Ms. Liebeck to carefully remove the lid. She had taken what many would consider to be the steps of a "reasonable" person.

(2) On appeal the punitive award was reduced to $480,000 and the parties eventually settled out of court for an amount presumed to be in the neighborhood of $600,000.

Gotta love it.

[system1111]

Got love how everyday people will get sued by corporations for many times their annual income ( $80,000 a song) but when it comes to corporations getting sued it equates to a far lower ratio. Any one else think its kind of silly.