Supreme Court Sides With DirectTV Vs. States/Consumer Rights

One of the biggest reasons for cord cutting is the lack of respect consumers feel they get from their cable and satellite provider. If you didn’t have reason to distrust satellite and cable enough add the fact that DirectTV sued and won the right to back out of it’s agreement with consumers allowing them to default to state laws in a dispute. Though DirecTV agreed to submit to state rights in it’s agreement with users, it appears they decided to flex it’s economic muscle and do an end around through the Supreme Court.

One of the firms represent the satellite users sent out a press release today describing the ruling:

In the latest of a series of decisions closing the courthouse doors on consumers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning, 6 to 3, that DIRECTV customers in California who were illegally charged “cancellation fees” of up to $480 – often taken directly out of a consumer’s bank account or charged to a credit card without the customer’s permission – cannot join together to sue the company in court.

Instead, the high court ordered, each consumer must have their complaint adjudicated through a private arbitration system established by DIRECTV (now owned by AT&T). The case is DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, et al. The opinion is available at:

The Court acknowledged that the arbitration clause drafted by DIRECTV said it would not apply if California state law barred such clauses. But the Court held that the California the California Court of Appeal’s decision applying California law appeared to discriminate against arbitration. This is the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has reversed a state court decision on arbitration on the ground that the state court misapplied state contract law.

Justice Breyer authored the opinion, in which he was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito and Kagan. Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented, as did Justice Thomas.

“This is another troubling day for American consumers who are ripped off by corporate greed and malfeasance, whether it’s a satellite TV system that doesn’t work, unlawful credit card fees, or a defective vehicle,” said Harvey Rosenfield, founder of Consumer Watchdog, and one of the lawyers who represented consumers in the litigation. “The Supreme Court has taken away Americans’ only right to obtain justice: their day in court. The more the U.S. Supreme Court allows big corporations to evade accountability, the less confidence Americans have in the judicial branch and the rule of law.”

The ruling surprised the lawyers who brought the litigation because DIRECTV’s contract left it to “the law of your state” to decide whether the arbitration clause applied, and the California Court of Appeal had ruled in this case that DIRECTV’s arbitration clause was illegal and therefore unenforceable under California contract law.

Indeed, DIRECTV initially acknowledged in the California court that its arbitration clause did not apply to the lawsuit – but later changed its mind after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 2011 ruling, Concepcion v AT&T, that requires American courts to honor virtually all arbitration clauses that corporations insert into the fine print of lengthy contracts most consumers never read.

Consumer Fight Began in 2008

DirecTV, now part of AT&T, is the largest satellite TV provider in the U.S. with over 16 million customers.

The Imburgia, case comprises two consolidated class action cases filed in state courts in California in 2008.

According to the class action complaint:

DirecTV imposes a mandatory service term of eighteen to twenty four months; few customers are aware of this condition prior to signing up. The company routinely extends this “contractual obligation,” often without notice, by another year or two if malfunctioning equipment needs to be replaced, or the customer decides to make a change to programming or other services.

Customers who terminate service are charged an “early cancellation fee” of up to $480, regardless of the reason, plus a “deactivation fee.” Customers are forced to pay these penalties even if their equipment could not be installed, they moved and DirecTV service isn’t available in the new location, or the equipment simply stopped working.

DirecTV often charges these cancellation fees directly to their customers’ credit cards, or even takes the funds out of their checking accounts, without the knowledge or approval of the customer. Many customers who were victimized by this practice incurred substantial additional bank fees as a result. Many others could not afford the fee and were locked into poor or no service for years as a result.

Similar suits were filed in federal courts throughout the country. But the federal cases were dismissed in December 2013 after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ordered that plaintiffs in those cases had to comply with DIRECTV’s arbitration clause.

DIRECTV’s arbitration clause stated that it was “unenforceable” if “the law of your state” forbids customers from joining together in a class action even in arbitration. In California state court, DIRECTV acknowledged that its arbitration clause was not enforceable in California, and the state Superior Court certified the case as a class action in May, 2011. DIRECTV then asked the court to dismiss the case and force consumers to resolve their complaints individually through a private arbitration, relying on the Concepcion decision. The Los Angeles Superior Court denied DIRECTV’s request and the company appealed. The Second District California Court of Appeal rejected DIRECTV’s contentions in April 2014. The company then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, which held oral argument on the case October 6, 2015.

Court Decision Replaces Day in Court with Private Arbitration

The Court’s ruling in Imburgia is the latest in a series of highly controversial decisions that began with Concepcion, in which the court has given corporations virtually carte blanche to require consumers to give up their right to their day in court to challenge corporate wrongdoing.

The arbitration systems created by big corporations bear little resemblance to the traditional American system of justice. An arbitrator takes on the role of the judge, jury, and court of appeals. An arbitrator makes final decisions that are nearly impossible to challenge, even if they are obviously wrong and unfair. Companies have the right to choose arbitrators that they think will unfairly favor the company. Companies have the right to refuse to hire an arbitrator if they think the arbitrator will be fair to consumers.

As Justice Ginsburg explains in her dissent to today’s decision, “It has become routine, in a large part due to this Court’s decisions, for powerful economic enterprises to write into their form contracts with consumers and employees no- class-action arbitration clauses.… Acknowledging the precedent so far set by the Court, I would take no further step to disarm consumers, leaving them without effective access to justice.”

To this day, DirecTV continues to employ the illegal practices. Its arbitration clause no longer contains an exception based on state law.

What do you think, is this more reason to not trust the satellite and cable companies and cut the cord? Comment below.

William B. West

William B. West

William B. West has been an internet journalist since 1998. Writing for a total of 25 pro wrestling news sites at his peak, before retiring only to return to online journalism in 2011. Currently William is editor of, a contributor to, and editor in chief of &

You May Also Like

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: