Judge Guts FTC's $4 Billion Lawsuit Against DirecTV (latimes.com)

The FTC has "failed to convince a federal judge in San Francisco that DirecTV should pay nearly $4 billion in restitution to customers for allegedly misleading consumers about the costs of programming packages," reports the Los Angeles Times. From the report: The judge didn't eliminate all of the FTC's false-advertising claims but made clear that "the scope of the maximum potential recovery in this case has been substantially curtailed." "This case did not involve the type of strong proof the court would expect to see in a case seeking nearly $4 billion in restitution, based on a claim that all of DirecTV's 33 million customers between 2007 and 2015 were necessarily deceived," U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam said Thursday.

The ruling follows an August 2017 nonjury trial of the FTC suit, alleging that DirecTV failed to adequately disclose to consumers in 40,000 print, mail, online and TV advertisements that its lower introductory pricing lasted just one year but tied buyers to a two-year contract. The FTC also alleged the subscription television service failed to alert customers that its offer for 90 days of premium channels required them to cancel the subscription to avoid continuing monthly charges.

Comments

I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[jd]

The evidence should surely concern the amount per person so affected, not the absolute amount. To argue the evidence isn't worth $4 billion is stupid. Let's say there are 10 million subscribers affected by deceptive practices. The evidence would then only have to be worth $400, because that's the impact on an individual.

I have no problems with a cap, fines should be limited to ensuring crime doesn't pay (even one cent) plus a surcharge to reflect the cost of investigating and prosecuting crimes (thus bringing the total benefit to zero) plus a fixed penalty for the crime itself. It should not be otherwise constrained, and certainly not by political motives or a good old boys club.

Secondly, if a company needs to practice deliberate, wilful deceptive marketing, it should probably have its business license suspended. It obviously is in no shape to compete on merit.

Re:I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got no problem with any size fine or any deterrent for the advertising tactics used, but its not like almost everyone doesn't know it. So the question in this case is what percentage of customer really didn't know, that is hard to determine. Claiming all customers were harmed is hard to defend.

I'm a conservative, and like most conservatives I support sensible rules and regulation. I believe less is better but here is a place where you should require explicit pricing statements that, where introductory prices are advertised, they must clearly include the term and the subsequent service price.

Re:I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[SirSlud]

I have no problems with a cap, fines should be limited to ensuring crime doesn't pay (even one cent) plus a surcharge to reflect the cost of investigating and prosecuting crimes (thus bringing the total benefit to zero) plus a fixed penalty for the crime itself. It should not be otherwise constrained, and certainly not by political motives or a good old boys club.

What the fuck does this even mean? To determine that crime doesn't pay, you have to figure out how much a company made from a deceptive or fraudulent practice. That's basically impossible unless you have a 2nd parallel timeline available to you. Which new customers would have become new customers regardless of a fraudulent marketing campaign when companies regularly engage in multiple novel marketing streams concurrently? That's always going to be an estimate, not an inarguable quantitative known number. And if the evidence isn't terribly conclusive that that value is X, for X being on the high end of the estimate of consumer damage or revenues from deceptive practices, then a judge will be hesitant to award it in the full amount. THEN you say it shouldn't otherwise be constrained .. which .. if you're referring to the punitive damages based on evidence - now I'm not sure you know what 'cap' means. A fine should be capped to something, that something being what the legal process determines to be a proper fine, which shouldn't be constrained - but again, you have no problem with a cap?

Re: I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like any ads I receive from any cable or internet company. The lure is in 72pt font. The limits are on the third page in 6pt font.

Re:I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

FTC go home. If I am injured or conned, I'll sue on my own. Fat cat bureaucrats getting their pensions again I see.

Re:I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

Less regulation only works where there is not a monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly and the business is of sufficiently small size that the people whom run them are personally accountable for the actions of the company.

Basically, only in the realm of small business and even there less regulation allows them to behave badly. But at when the business is small the bad behavior opens doors for competition or the community around the bad actor will put a stop to it by shunning the person in charge or not doing business with them.

Re:I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[geekmux]

I'm a conservative, and like most conservatives I support sensible rules and regulation. I believe less is better but here is a place where you should require explicit pricing statements that, where introductory prices are advertised, they must clearly include the term and the subsequent service price.

They are including those details. In the fine print.

What this lawsuit really seeks is to determine just how many consumers are too stupid and ignorant to actually read their contract and understand their obligations. Since the concept of "fine print" is pretty much universally known and recognized by now (as is "introductory pricing", it's rather hard to claim you're a victim, and likely a rather easy defense for the perpetrators.

Yes, I hate fine print as well, but I hate mass stupidity and ignorance even more. Part of me wants to let these consumers swing in the wind because the hard was is the only way you teach stupid people to wise up.

Re:I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I hate fine print as well, but I hate mass stupidity and ignorance even more.

Funny, I hate greed and apathy even more.

Telling people to "wise up" to being swindled out of their money is one thing, but to tell them to expect it as a standard matter of doing day-to-day business is another. This is bad behavior that is prevalent everywhere in US industry, not just one or two bad actors in a single industry. Telling people to "wise up" in this case is an endorsement of that bad behavior on the grounds of "Doesn't happen to me, sucks to be you."

The GP was right, these "businesses" who seem to only be profitable if they mislead and gouge consumers, who refuse to compete on merrit, need to be shutdown. They no longer serve any public benefit and are constantly creating harm as parasites. They need to go.

Also, the $4 billion was a pathetic attempt at restitution in the first place, and definitely not a deterrent against future bad behavior. That's a drop in the bucket to most companies, but the ruling would have you believe that it would devastate DirecTV. What crap, and people want to know why things never change....

Re:I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[rickb928]

Try this:

If I subscribe to DirectTV in March, with the 3 month premium channel deal, just one channel (Usually it's three), I would in a year pay 9 months' premium service that I may not have expected to. At $9 per month (that's conservative) that's $81. Then the contract changes into a full-price deal, and my costs go much higher, and they get my attention, so let's stop the analysis there.

$81 times only 22 million subscribers (a third figured it out, sure). $1,782,000,000. Times 8.

OK, let's settle on just 10% of these clueless subscribers were deceived. $1,425,600,000. Yeah, the FTC asked way too much money, they should have asked for $1 billion. OR start at $4 Billion, and 'settle' for $500 Million in court, consent decree and a $100 Million settlement, and everyone leaves the table happy, except of course the subscribers who may share a third (REALLY optimistic) after the lawyers get paid, or, if a fraction register for the class, probably more like $8 each.

Our Federal government lacks the nerve and drive to actually punish a transgressor like this. If DirectTV is truly guilty of misleading subscribers for so long, a $4 Billion fine would only give back about $120 per subscriber, or a little more than a years' thievery, each. Real punishment would have to include intrusive regulation, such as disclosure in larger type, maybe a fee calendar, hey, be creative.

It works for the financial industry, right? They sure cleaned that up, right? Right?

We didn't really, really fine Wells Fargo for what was not merely illegal, but plainly theft. And we didn't cause anyone involved deep personal embarrassment. I'm beginning to appreciate the Icelandic example.

Re:I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[geekmux]

Yes, I hate fine print as well, but I hate mass stupidity and ignorance even more.

Funny, I hate greed and apathy even more.

Telling people to "wise up" to being swindled out of their money is one thing, but to tell them to expect it as a standard matter of doing day-to-day business is another. This is bad behavior that is prevalent everywhere in US industry, not just one or two bad actors in a single industry. Telling people to "wise up" in this case is an endorsement of that bad behavior on the grounds of "Doesn't happen to me, sucks to be you."

Yes, I hate unethical business practices as much as you do, but your own statement tends to confirm why everyone should wise up, because ethics in business sure as hell isn't going to change anytime soon.

Fine print does exist everywhere. Intelligent people understand this, and do not get swindled. Telling people to wise up and learn to read their contracts is nothing more than dictating common sense. If they refuse to listen, then Experience will be their teacher in life. Yes, it does "suck" to be unteachable, but I don't enjoy wasting legal resources (and/or taxpayer money) defending the moron who was shocked and appalled to find his Adjustable Rate Mortgage is adjustable. Or a limited time offer, is limited.

Intelligent people also do not appreciate having to pay for mass stupidity via price increases either, which is exactly how every company pays for shit like this.

TL; DR - If PT Barnum were alive today, he wouldn't be considered a criminal. He would be the richest man on the planet.

Re: I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[bobby]

Sounds like any ads I receive from any cable or internet company. The lure is in 72pt font. The limits are on the third page in 6pt font.

Sadly this has been business practice for probably thousands of years, certainly well established in modern times and is precedent.

_I_ think it need to be criminally illegal.

At the very least, you should be able to drop the subscription at any time with no penalty if any terms, conditions, changeability are written in a small font, or are in a separate document.

And NO contract should EVER be enforceable if it contains "we reserve the right to change these terms...".

Re:I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

Telling people to "wise up" to being swindled out of their money is one thing, but to tell them to expect it as a standard matter of doing day-to-day business is another.

Nevertheless, don't you seriously, actually expect it? Do TV companies ever not use deceptive ads that we would call criminal for any other business but tolerate for TV?

Re: I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[omnichad]

I talked to a sales rep with AT&T when FTTN came to my area. They said I couldn't even see the contract until the installer came on the install date. I'm sure that's probably a lie, and it also wouldn't have been the only lie (they claimed it was FTTH).

Re:I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[omnichad]

Were they? I've seen plenty of terms that say that you will pay the "current" price when the promotional pricing is up, but none that say what that price actually is.

Re:I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[drinkypoo]

Our Federal government lacks the nerve and drive to actually punish a transgressor like this. If DirectTV is truly guilty of misleading subscribers for so long, a $4 Billion fine would only give back about $120 per subscriber, or a little more than a years' thievery, each. Real punishment would have to include intrusive regulation, such as disclosure in larger type, maybe a fee calendar, hey, be creative.

The best solution is to simply fine them enough per user to make the practice unprofitable, and then some. It has to cost as much on average to get busted for these schemes that if they get busted as much as average, they will lose money. It's not really necessary to craft a bunch of new regulations; the fact is that they committed fraud, and they should be punished for fraud. It's cheapest to simply fine them, rather than dicking around with repayment plans. One and done, and move on to the next offender. The laws are already in place to punish them, and we should use those laws instead of dreaming up new ones. And just to reiterate, they have to be fined enough per-customer defrauded to dissuade them from defrauding the next customer. Only fining them based on nebulous "damages" doesn't convince them to change their evil ways.

Re:I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[bobby]

In spite of how most people talk and write these days, none of this is absolute. It's shades of gray.

It's not just stupid / ignorant; many contracts are not understandable by top legal experts. At some point someone needs to establish the rules of the language used.

I agree in principal: I wish people would not agree to ANY contract that has fine print. The sad fact is that people do, and it sets a precedent that hypothetically some people understand and agree with the terms (even when they likely do not).

Re:I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[mnemotronic]

Theoretically, how to lose a trial with your buds at Direct TV.

Ok, so you got saddled with having to prosecute this case against your friends over at DirectTV who just happen to be campaign contributors of the boss . How do you make it look to the dumb-ass public like you're doing your job, but not cause any undue financial burden on the (cough-cough) accused? I've got an idea; take all the competent lawyers off the case, have them take a bunch of evidence and documents with them, then assign some rookies to do the prosecution. The new team won't know about the missing evidence and they won't have enough of it to get a conviction. It'll look like DirectTV is innocent, or just being silly. Problem solved! Theoretically.

Re:I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

1 billiion.. hell, even 4 billion.. is NOT enough. directv has been scamming customers using these same tricks FOR DECADES .. and they aren't the only ones. dish and the cable companies can get strung-up for similar tactics.

Re:I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

Specifically, DirecTV advertised a discounted 12-month pay-TV plan, but the package actually required a two-year contract, with prices increasing by up to $45 per month in the second year. The early termination fee -- $480! -- and charges for premium channels were also not properly disclosed.

The quote is from TFA. Those who know shouldn't be involved in the law suit in the first place.

The problem usually started from the salesmen. The only thing I expect any salesmen to disclose is the requiring 2-year contract. Anything else, especially the termination fee, they wouldn't tell their customers unless those customers ask the 'right questions'. How many people do you think they would ask the right questions? Don't use yourself as the standard though.

There is another issue with termination fee. Some customers have issue with their installation. Their services didn't work in those customers' area for some reasons or their incompetent technicians couldn't get it to work. As a result, those customers wanted to cancel the service because no service rendered; however, DirectTV slapped them with termination fee. If those customers don't pay, they will get a hit on their credit because they will be sent to collection. How do customers fight that without spending resources (time, money , etc.)? I'm sure that these customers are a part of this law suit.

Re: I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[bobby]

Sounds like the infamous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract

Stunningly troubling how our "legal system" still often upholds it.

Re: I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for Directv and cleaned up the mess left by greedy salespeople on a daily basis - as in these were a HUGE portion of my calls. The whole problem stems from said salespeople who are #1: required to meet a quota or else it could lead to termination, and #2 incentive for such sales = more $ in the pockets of salespeople. There is such a high turnover rate at Directv that the salespeople honestly don't give a shoot because they might move on in a week's time; and hey they got their greenbacks already. The most common victims are the very young and elderly; especially when said salespeople fire away all these conditions at a speed that would be envious of Speedy Gonzales himself - after all they do this on a daily basis 8 hours a day (surprise! OT is avail) with virtually no breathing room between calls except for 15 min bathroom break and 30 min unpaid lunch. After the victims heads spin, most reluctantly say yes; even when they don't understand. Plus every extra tacted onto the bill is bonus points for the salespeople. It is fraud on a massive Wells Fargo scale, no doubt about it. The judge is either in bed with them or also like these same people who were duped, just doesn't understand. Once the agreement is up, that's when the calls flood in and it was my job to calm the customer and explain all these things. 99.8% of the time these same customers are hearing these details for the very first time. And yes, there were real incidences where none of this was ever mentioned; in fact we had an all-hands meeting about that very issue and how important it is to explain these things - cuz again, it's a DAILY issue on the phones! Not to mention the 3rd party robocalls to sell said services to those without any service at all, good luck reaching those fuckers or expect ANY accountability. AT&T bought them out and as you all know their prices dropped (cough) and service got better (cough, cough) and my job that was promised not to go away during the merger - big surprise! - went away. Guess what else? You know when you ask for a 'manager' or 'supervisor?' Jokes on you, cuz there is none! Buck gets passed to a peer on point. Greedy salespeople sold (read: lied and shoved down your throat) you an upgrade package without explaining all the conditions and fees, the computer system is designed just like cell phone companies with no way to reverse back to your grandfathered deal. There is a very slight escalation path, but 90% of the time it is hard coded and nothing can be done; which is great for the bottom dollar and no need for a real supervisor who can override! But hey, I can get you 3 months free HBO and $10 off your next bill for your troubles - just don't forget to call back in to cancel and we'll sell you something else you don't need. Funny how that works out. Come on now, let's put our real logical thinking caps on - are you really gonna believe the big bad wolf now? If so, I got a bridge to sell you.

Re:I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah right bootlicker. You know consumers will never wise up.
This sort of behavior has done a lot to ruin trust in our society. I shouldn't have to record customer service reps and tell them I'll sue them over a fucking penny if they dick me around. I should expect that in personal business I can treat people the way I'd like to be treated.

Strong proof?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's that, like each and every flyer and screenshots of all ads run presented to evidence?

Re:Strong proof of guilt againt mother nature

[Anonymous Coward]

dealing with endless stacks of unopened junk mail from greed fear ego based wmd on credit psycho megaslothian entities is just more of the same poop?

I have a $45 package.

[olsmeister]

My bill is $100+. What more proof does anyone need?

Re:I have a $45 package.

[Anonymous Coward]

Proof that you cannot read the fine print? That is so American.

Fucking please. Get off your high horse. There's not a single country in the world where citizens enjoy reading EULAs, nor do they feel obligated to. Go read your own fine print. You'll realize how much you've been deceived as well. It's may not as obvious, but I can assure you it happens everywhere.

Re:I have a $45 package.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for punishing companies for deceptive practices but all the information was included on the advertisements. Dish network did the same thing during that time period and before. I live in a rural area and I've had satellite for decades. Cable companies have been doing the same thing for decades and so have a lot of other businesses. Sign up for an introductory price for 6 months or a year but in order to get that price you have to sign a 2 year contract. It was standard practice for several industries. The information was always at the bottom of the advertisement in the fine print and they would tell you when you called to sign up that it was a 2 year agreement. None of them were open about the cost after the introductory period but would tell you as soon as you asked how much it would be after 6 months or a year.

My Direct TV package is listed at $88 but ends up being about $120 once they add all their bullshit fees. I called and got the support persons email and showed them the offer direct tv sent me as an advertisement. It said $88 and also said no other fees on top of it. I told them to cut the fees off or I was going to file a complaint. They didn't have a choice other than cutting the fees or coming to pick up their equipment. They dropped it down and including the equipment rental fees I pay around $115 a month instead of $170. I would get rid of satellite all together but I need the extra $13 a month sports package so I can watch motorcycle racing. Be In sports is owned by the Qatari government and bought all the rights to all the motorcycle racing series in the US and Europe. Last time I looked there wasn't a streaming option maybe I'll check again.

What is your cell phone bill? Advertised cost versus actual costs after all the taxes and fees. My point is that every company practices deceptive advertising because Americans want to be fooled into believing they are getting a good deal. It doesn't matter if they are getting a good deal only that they think they are at first. It's how so many people get into trouble financially, they don't look at what they will actually be paying. Some of it is on the companies and how they advertise but 75% is a lack of personal responsibility on the part of the customer. We too often jump at a "good deal" without ever questioning why it is such a good deal in the first place.

Re:I have a $45 package.

[omnichad]

every company practices deceptive advertising because Americans want to be fooled into believing they are getting a good deal.

And the FTC allows made up "fees" to not be considered part of the price. It should be considered lying, not just deceptive advertising.

Re:I have a $45 package.

[magarity]

What is your cell phone bill? Advertised cost versus actual costs after all the taxes and fees. My point is that every company practices deceptive advertising because Americans want to be fooled into believing they are getting a good deal

My cell phone bill is $80 which is exactly what T-Mobile advertised it to be. The fine print said all taxes and fees are included, and they are. It all depends on the company.

Re:I have a $45 package.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to disagree, even searching these companies websites for prices and availability. Often times the listed price says introductory, but it doesn't list the final price anywhere. That's before even approaching the "regulatory fees" which aren't user-targeted taxes but somehow avoid enumeration in the listed price. That's not just something we've come to expect, it's also illegal.

Re: Donald Trump will hang for treason

[Anonymous Coward]

The useful idiots are out in force today.

They're all the same - PREDATORS

[Anonymous Coward]

ATT, Comcast, DirectTV, You-Name-It --- they all put out false and misleading advertising in order to hook you into a contract.
FINE THEM.

Re:They're all the same - PREDATORS

[Anonymous Coward]

But, but, Obama, Obama he saved us from this. He had eight years to save us.

Trump sucks. FTC. Orange. Hitler. Stallin. Dump Trump.
So much change...so much change.

Re:They're all the same - PREDATORS

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for making a valid point - OBAMA, TRUMP ... same, same.

Smarter than the Average Consumer

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had DirecTV for nearly five years. There was no surprise when my bill increased after the first year because I read the fine print and asked questions to the person on the phone. People, read your contracts.

Yes there are a pile of extra fees, mostly equipment charges, but those aren't mentioned in the summary. I didn't RTFA, of course.

Re:Smarter than the Average Consumer

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't read the fine print. I shouldn't have to. The bottom line price should be in the LARGE PRINT. It's the only thing that matters.

Re:Smarter than the Average Consumer

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't read the fine print. I shouldn't have to. The bottom line price should be in the LARGE PRINT. It's the only thing that matters.

You don't read fine print and feel you shouldn't have to?

Good luck with that ignorant attitude in life. I can assure you that a mere cable provider won't be the only thing that fucks you over.

Re:Smarter than the Average Consumer

[parkinglot777]

I don't read the fine print. I shouldn't have to. The bottom line price should be in the LARGE PRINT. It's the only thing that matters.

You don't read fine print and feel you shouldn't have to?

Good luck with that ignorant attitude in life. I can assure you that a mere cable provider won't be the only thing that fucks you over.

No, there shouldn't be any fine print at all! Why does any info need to be hidden from customers? The law should prevent any fine print. All informations should be presented in a similar manner in the first place. If customers don't want to read all of them, then the fault is on them, no question asked. Because companies create this kind of fine print, they can point their fingers on customers. I still don't see why there should be any fine print at all. Why?

Tax Scam

[link-error]

For many years, they also would tax your total, then apply your various credits (free box, etc), but not reduce the tax. It skimmed millions per month from subscribers. I considered filing a class-action-lawsuit, but noticed the arbitration clause would prevent it.
      I did notice after complaining about it on a customer service call one it actually stopped a few months later, probably coincidence.

Re:Tax Scam

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a tax scam. That's the law of the land for the state that I live in. It might be for you as well. For instance, if you do a buy-one-get-one-free deal, the business is supposed to charge tax on both items. Also, items are supposed to be taxed at MSRP, not the discounted item price, so if your item is normally $10, and you are getting it for $4, you are supposed to pay the full tax of the $10, so $1 (10% combined tax in these parts). $5 total. It's these kind of crazy laws that prevent items from being labelled up front with price+tax on the sticker.

Oh, also, my state charges tax for shipping and handling, too, because "You get the box, and that's an item of value." I guess we should be grateful that they don't charge taxes on the fees that the phone and cable companies levee against us.

Just raise the federal income tax to 50%, state income tax to 50% of the remainder of that, and leave me with my two cents (which I'll gladly deposit here).

Wut a day for some buttsecks!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

   

Defending Mass Ignorance.

[geekmux]

Yes, we all hate fine print, but we pretty much all know that fine print exists in every contract. No matter what stupid argument you want to make about font size being used, it is still on the consumer to fully understand any contract. That logic is universal.

One thing is for certain. If PT Barnum were alive today, he would have been the richest man on the planet.

Re:Defending Mass Ignorance.

[drinkypoo]

No matter what stupid argument you want to make about font size being used, it is still on the consumer to fully understand any contract. That logic is universal.

That, sir, is a load of crap. If a contract is designed to be misleading, then offering it is itself an illegal act. Not just the part where you take advantage of them (which is a separate illegal act) but the actual offering of the misleading contract.

One thing is for certain. If PT Barnum were alive today, he would have been the richest man on the planet.

Only if he greased the right palms, which is how those who are permitted to defraud the public are chosen.

Re:Defending Mass Ignorance.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

PT Barnum was plenty rich in his lifetime.

But more importantly, we moved away from the "fully understand the contract" being a legitimate point of view. Heck, most contracts (including between companies which have legal departments) include instructions for what happens when a judge rules that some part of the contract wasn't acceptable. Most importantly, its unreasonable to expect "use Netflix/an ISP/cable/App Store" to require a law degree and several hours.

Re:Defending Mass Ignorance.

[squiggleslash]

Saying it's OK to rip people off if they don't understand what you're offering doesn't say much that's positive about you.

Society and the free market doesn't work if there isn't at least a baseline level of honesty and understanding. If the only way you can sell something is to confuse the buyer and pretend it's something else, then it doesn't matter how "technically correct" you are, you're an asshole, and you deserve to have your business taken away from you.

Re:correction of non-word spelling

[Applehu Akbar]

"Unchosen:" Don't knock what could be the world's greatest title for a spaghetti Western.

Re:FTC today, TRUMP tomorrow

[Applehu Akbar]

So was this judge a bought-off Trump appointee or a technologically clueless Obama appointee?

So how much DID they think was OK

[houghi]

So how much DID they think was OK. I tried to read the article but got:
Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries.

So now you know that the LA Times is selling your data and does not care for your privacy.
You are welcome.

As opposed to the RIAA

[oh_my_080980980]

"it’s calculated based on the profit the FTC estimates DirecTV made thanks to the false advertising." https://bgr.com/2017/08/18/att...

Since the RIAA can claim the number of **potential** dowlnoads by torrent users to determine damages for music downloads, the calculation used by the FTC seems to be a far BETTER for determining damages.

What's the problem judge or do you not know what your fellow judges accept.

come on

[Anonymous Coward]

(((they))) dindu nuffin