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.