Comcast, Calif. Subscribers Clash Over McGill Rule in Arbitration Fight
A lower court denial of Comcast's motion to compel arbitration of subscriber claims it fails to properly disclose the true pricing of cable packages was correct since the subscriber agreement terms "indisputably" violate California's McGill rule, said a docket 18-15288…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
appellees' brief (in Pacer) filed Wednesday in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The McGill rule makes void contracts that deny consumers their non-waivable rights to pursue claims for public injunctive relief, appellees Charles Tillage and Joseph Loomis said. They said the lower court also correctly rejected Comcast’s argument that the McGill rule is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) since every other court that has considered the issue has done likewise. Comcast's appeal said (in Pacer) the Supreme Court has been clear the FAA mandates enforcement of arbitration agreements and can't be contravened by state laws that disfavor or discourage arbitration. It said McGill "disproportionately invalidates" arbitration agreements, upending the purpose of the FAA.