FTC Directv

Case3:15-cv-01129-HSG Document25 Filed05/15/15 Page1 of 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
CHAD S. HUMMEL (Bar No. CA 139055)

E-mail: CHummel@manatt.com
CLAYTON S. FRIEDMAN (Bar No. CA 245513)
E-mail: CFriedman@manatt.com
MICHAEL YAGHI (Bar No. CA 202720)
E-mail: MYaghi@manatt.com
MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
11355 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
Telephone: (310) 312-4000
Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
CHRISTIAN E. BAKER (Bar No. CA 247006)
E-mail: CBaker@manatt.com
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 291-7400
Facsimile: (415) 291-7474
Attorneys for Defendants
DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC
12
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
16
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
No. 3:15-cv-01129 HSG
18
v.
NOTICE OF LODGING OF AMENDED

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS DIRECTV
AND DIRECTV, LLC
19
DIRECTV, a corporation,
Judge:
20
and
21
DIRECTV, LLC, a limited liability

company,
Plaintiff,
17
22
Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.,

United States District Judge
Complaint Filed:
Trial Date:
March 11, 2015

Not Set
Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES
NOTICE OF LODGING OF
AMENDED ANSWER
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC
(Defendants) hereby lodge Defendants Amended Answer with the Court to be considered in
support of the concurrently filed Stipulated Request and [Proposed] Order for Filing of Amended
Answer. The Amended Answer is hereby attached as Exhibit A.
6
7
8
Dated: May 15, 2015
9
10
11
By: /s/ Chad S. Hummel

Chad S. Hummel
Attorney for Defendants
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES
NOTICE OF LODGING OF
AMENDED ANSWER
EXHIBIT A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
CHAD S. HUMMEL (Bar No. CA 139055)

E-mail: CHummel@manatt.com
CLAYTON S. FRIEDMAN (Bar No. CA 245513)
E-mail: CFriedman@manatt.com
MICHAEL YAGHI (Bar No. CA 202720)
E-mail: MYaghi@manatt.com
MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
11355 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
Telephone: (310) 312-4000
Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
CHRISTIAN E. BAKER (Bar No. CA 247006)
E-mail: CBaker@manatt.com
One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 291-7400
Facsimile: (415) 291-7474
12
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
16
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,
17
18
v.
19
DIRECTV, a corporation,
20
and
21
DIRECTV, LLC, a limited liability

company,
22
No. 3:15-cv-01129 HSG

AMENDED ANSWER OF DIRECTV AND
DIRECTV, LLC
Judge:
Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United

States District Court Judge
Complaint Filed:
Trial Date:
March 11, 2015

Not Set
Defendants.
23
24
25
Defendants DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC, by and through their undersigned counsel,
26
hereby answer the Complaint (complaint) filed by Plaintiff FEDERAL TRADE
27
COMMISSION (hereinafter Plaintiff or FTC), as follows:
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES
314531387.1
AMENDED ANSWER
1
2
ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT

1.
Paragraph 1 contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent any statements in this Paragraph are considered factual allegations, Defendants deny any
such allegations. More specifically, Defendants generally and specifically deny that they have
engaged in conduct that violates Section 5 of the FTC Act or Section 4 of ROSCA. Defendants
have fully and adequately disclosed to potential and actual subscribers, at all times relevant to this
action, all the material terms of their subscription satellite television services and offers,
including, but not limited to, the pricing of television programming packages, the existence and
length of consumer contract terms, the existence of early cancellation fees and the circumstances
10
under which those may be imposed, and the terms relating to promotional offers for premium
11
channels such as HBO, Showtime, and Cinemax. Defendants further deny that any equitable or
12
statutory remedy as alleged is warranted.
13
14
JURISDICTION, VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

2.
Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 2, except to the extent that this
15
Court may determine that the FTC lacks standing to assert any claims over which the Federal
16
Communications Commission (FCC) has exclusive enforcement authority.
17
3.
Defendants admit that venue is proper in this judicial district, but reserve their
18
right to seek a transfer to a more convenient venue should circumstances arise justifying a motion
19
under, for example, 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).
20
4.
Defendants admit that DIRECTV, LLC advertised and has sold satellite television
21
subscription services in San Francisco County and deny the remaining allegations contained in
22
Paragraph 4.
23
PLAINTIFF
24
5.
Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 5.
25
6.
Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 6, except to the extent that the
26
Court may determine that the FTC is not authorized or lacks standing to enjoin, or seek equitable
27
relief relating to, conduct at issue in this case due to the FCCs exclusive enforcement authority.
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES
314531387.1
AMENDED ANSWER
1
2
DEFENDANTS
7.
Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 7, except that DIRECTV, LLC is
the entity that has engaged in the advertising, marketing, distribution, and selling activities of
direct-to-home digital television services to consumers throughout the United States that are the
subject of the complaint.
8.
Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 8, except that they deny that
defendant DIRECTV (the named defendant DIRECTV) has directly engaged in the activities
listed in this Paragraph. Hereinafter, any admissions by Defendants to allegations of the
complaint are made solely with respect to and by DIRECTV, LLC (hereinafter DIRECTV), as
10
the named defendant DIRECTV operates other business units which are not the subject of the
11
complaint. All of the material allegations, if directed at the named defendant DIRECTV, are
12
generally and specifically denied.
13
14
COMMERCE
9.
15
16
17
18
DEFENDANTS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES

10.
Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 10, except that DIRECTV is the
entity that, as of December 31, 2013, had 20.3 million subscribers in the United States.
11.
Defendants admit that DIRECTV offers direct-to-home satellite television service
19
to consumers by subscription, and that consumers who subscribe receive programming, necessary
20
equipment, installation, and support services. Defendants deny any remaining allegations
21
contained in Paragraph 11.
22
12.
Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 except as follows:
23
DIRECTV admits that it has made offers to consumers that provide introductory pricing
24
discounts, no upfront or reduced costs for installation and equipment, and other benefits, in
25
exchange for the consumers agreement to purchase a minimum level of service for a period,
26
typically, of 24 months. DIRECTV admits that, under the terms of such offers, which have been
27
clearly and conspicuously disclosed to consumers, and in appropriate circumstances, it has the
28
contractual right to assess and collect early cancellation fees, which have sometimes been $20 per
M ANATT , P HELPS &

P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES
Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 9.
314531387.1
AMENDED ANSWER
month for each month remaining on a subscribers agreement, should the subscriber breach their
contractual obligation to maintain a required minimum level of service for the entire commitment
period. Defendants further admit that DIRECTVs customers may become month-to-month
subscribers after 24 months. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 12.
Defendants admit that DIRECTV advertises for its products and services,
including that it offers introductory promotional pricing for some of its programming packages,
the terms of which vary by offer and have been and are clearly and conspicuously disclosed to
consumers. Defendants further admit that DIRECTV advertises for its satellite television
subscription services, including, in certain instances, promotional pricing offers, in a variety of
10
media, including television, print, and the Internet. Defendants admit that the regular prices for
11
satellite television subscription programming packages are periodically adjusted to reflect
12
inflationary price increases and that the fact that its program pricing is subject to change has been
13
and is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to consumers. Defendants admit that consumers who
14
obtain the benefit of substantially discounted introductory first year pricing are typically charged
15
the then-existing regular price of whatever programming package they choose during the second
16
year of their subscription. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 13.
17
14.
Defendants admit that DIRECTVs programming subscriptions may include, at the
18
election of consumers, certain premium channels such as HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime free of
19
charge for a limited period of time, that consumers are thereafter charged the regular price for
20
subscriptions to such premium channels at the end of the promotional period unless the consumer
21
contacts DIRECTV to cancel one or more of the premium services, and that the material terms
22
and conditions of these premium channel offers are clearly and conspicuously disclosed to
23
consumers. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 14.
24
15.
Defendants admit that DIRECTV, Inc. entered into a Multistate Settlement
25
Agreement with 50 states and the District of Columbia and that the terms of that Agreement
26
bound and continue to bind certain activities of DIRECTV relating to some of the identical issues
27
addressed in this complaint. DIRECTV further admits that not a single state has brought an
28
enforcement action for any alleged violation of the letter or spirit of that Agreement since it was
M ANATT , P HELPS &

P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES
13.
314531387.1
AMENDED ANSWER
effective (January 2011). Defendants lack knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 15.
Defendants admit that DIRECTV has disseminated advertisements for its
subscription services since 2007, and that Plaintiff attaches what it claims to be examples of
portions of such advertisements as Exhibits 1 through 3, the contents of which speak for
themselves. Defendants admit that the quoted sections in this Paragraph appear in the
advertisements, and state that the material terms of the programming package offers are clearly,
conspicuously, and prominently disclosed to consumers at multiple times and in multiple ways
prior to the time that any consumer is financially committed to subscribe to DIRECTV service
10
and a programming package. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph
11
16.
12
17.
Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 17.
13
18.
Defendants admit that certain DIRECTV advertisements have described an offer
14
for free premium channels for three months. Defendants further admit that Plaintiff attaches an
15
example of a DIRECTV advertisement as Exhibit 1, the content of which speaks for itself.
16
Defendants further admit that, in language not quoted in full in the complaint, the advertisement
17
states, with respect to the offer: Over 30 premium channels FREE for 3 months including HBO,
18
SHOWTIME and Cinemax with SELECT or ULTIMATE Packages. All Packages require 24 mo
19
agreement [] IF BY THE END OF PROMOTIONAL PRICE PERIOD(S) CUSTOMER DOES
20
NOT CONTACT DIRECTV TO CHANGE SERVICE, THEN ALL SERVICES WILL
21
AUTOMATICALLY CONTINUE AT THE THEN-PREVAILING RATES. Defendants deny
22
the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 18.
23
19.
24
20.
Defendants admit that DIRECTV maintains the website, www.directv.com, on
25
which consumers receive information about DIRECTV products and services and through which
26
they may subscribe to its satellite television services. Defendants further admit that the website
27
contains a landing page, programming package selection page, receiver selection page, a
28
shopping cart page, and an order confirmation page, among other pages. Defendants deny the
M ANATT , P HELPS &

P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES
16.
314531387.1
AMENDED ANSWER
1
2
21.
Defendants admit that Plaintiff attaches as Exhibit 4 printed copies of some
selected web pages that appeared on one version of a subscription web flow on www.directv.com,
the content of which speaks for itself. Defendants state that Exhibit 4 does not contain many
relevant web pages or the text contained in or accessed through hyperlinks, roll-overs, mouse-
overs, light boxes, infohovers, pop-ups, and similar means of conveying information to
consumers that are readily available to consumers who navigate DIRECTVs website. In short,
Defendants deny that Exhibit 4 depicts all relevant portions of a DIRECTV web flow, or even an
example thereof. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 21.
10
22.
11
23.
Defendants admit that certain of DIRECTV web pages on www.directv.com
12
contain text advertising its offers for free premium channels, and that Plaintiff attaches as Exhibit
13
4 what it contends are copies of selected web pages that appeared on one version of a subscription
14
flow from www.directv.com, the content of which speaks for itself. Defendants deny that Exhibit
15
4 depicts all relevant portions of a DIRECTV web flow, or even an example thereof. Defendants
16
deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 23.
17
24.
18
25.
Defendants admit that consumers who call a telephone number listed in
19
DIRECTVs advertisements can speak with a telephone customer service representative. If the
20
consumer wished to subscribe during such a call, the terms and conditions of subscriptions to
21
DIRECTVs satellite television services are fully and clearly disclosed. Defendants deny the
22
remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 25.
23
ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO THE FTC ACT
24
26.
25
26
such allegations.
27
27.
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES
remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 20.
314531387.1
AMENDED ANSWER
such allegations.
COUNT I
28.
29.
30.
COUNT II
31.
32.
33.
10
ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO ROSCA
11
34.
12
13
such allegations.
14
35.
15
16
such allegations.
17
36.
18
19
such allegations.
20
37.
21
22
such allegations.
23
38.
24

COUNT III
25
39.
26
40.
27
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES
COUNT IV
41.
314531387.1

7
AMENDED ANSWER
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
By setting forth these affirmative defenses, Defendants do not assume the burden of
proving any fact, issue, or element of a claim for relief where such burden properly belongs to
Plaintiff. Moreover, nothing stated herein is intended to be construed as an acknowledgement
that any particular issue or subject matter is relevant to Plaintiffs allegations. Nor shall anything
stated or unstated constitute an admission of any kind.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure To State A Claim)
10
11
The complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against
Defendants.
12
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
13
(Compliance With Applicable Law)
14
15
Plaintiffs claims are barred because Defendants conduct is not unlawful in that
Defendants complied with applicable statutes and regulations.
16
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17
(Statute Of Limitations)
18
Counts III and IV of the Complaint are barred in part or in whole by the 3-year statute of
19
limitations under 15 U.S.C. 57b(d), or alternatively by the 4-year statute of limitations under 28
20
U.S.C. 1658.
21
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22
(Laches)
23
Plaintiffs claims are barred in part or in whole by the doctrine of laches on grounds that
24
include, but are not limited to, the following facts and circumstances: in December 2010 and
25
effective January 2011, after a lengthy investigation and negotiation with a multi-state group of
26
attorneys general, DIRECTV entered into a nationwide agreement with 50 states (and the District
27
of Columbia), resulting in 51 substantially similar judgments and consent orders. The issues
28
addressed by the investigation and in the orders cover the same conduct at issue in this lawsuit:
M ANATT , P HELPS &

P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES
42.
314531387.1
AMENDED ANSWER
introductory discount price offers for satellite TV program packages, the requirement of a two
year commitment to obtain the introductory pricing, how long the promotional price remains in
effect, the disclosure of the regular price, the possible imposition of early cancellation fees, and
roll to pay premium channel offers. The FTC was invited to participate in the negotiation and
resolution of those issues before the settlement was finalized but declined. There has never been
an enforcement proceeding brought against DIRECTV by any state or the District of Columbia
based on the multi-state agreement, and DIRECTV has relied, in part, on the requirements of that
agreement in designing its advertising disclosures. The FTC has been aware of the multi-state
agreement and DIRECTVs advertising since late 2010 and did not take any formal action against
10
the company on the issues implicated by the multi-state agreement until 2015. Regardless of the
11
nationwide settlement agreement, it would be inequitable for Plaintiff to seek injunctive,
12
monetary, or other equitable relief extending back for almost a decade based on at least the
13
foregoing.
14
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
15
(Estoppel)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &

P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES
Plaintiffs claims are barred in part or in whole by the doctrine of estoppel on grounds that
314531387.1
AMENDED ANSWER
foregoing.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Waiver)
Plaintiffs claims are barred in part or in whole by the doctrine of waiver on grounds that
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
foregoing.
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES
314531387.1
10
AMENDED ANSWER
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Claim Preclusion)
3
4
grounds that include, but are not limited to, the following facts and circumstances: in December
2010 and effective January 2011, after a lengthy investigation and negotiation with a multi-state
group of attorneys general, DIRECTV entered into a nationwide agreement with 50 states (and
the District of Columbia), resulting in 51 substantially similar judgments and consent orders. The
issues addressed by the investigation and in the orders cover the same conduct at issue in this
lawsuit: introductory discount price offers for satellite TV program packages, the requirement of
10
a two year commitment to obtain the introductory pricing, how long the promotional price
11
remains in effect, the disclosure of the regular price, the possible imposition of early cancellation
12
fees, and roll to pay premium channel offers. The FTC was invited to participate in the
13
negotiation and resolution of those issues before the settlement was finalized but declined. There
14
has never been an enforcement proceeding brought against DIRECTV by any state or the District
15
of Columbia based on the multi-state agreement, and DIRECTV has relied, in part, on the
16
requirements of that agreement in designing its advertising disclosures. The FTC has been aware
17
of the multi-state agreement and DIRECTVs advertising since late 2010 and did not take any
18
formal action against the company on the issues implicated by the multi-state agreement until
19
2015. Regardless of the nationwide settlement agreement, it would be inequitable for Plaintiff to
20
seek injunctive, monetary, or other equitable relief extending back for almost a decade based on
21
at least the foregoing. To the extent any new issues are raised by Plaintiff in this lawsuit, which
22
Defendants deny, those issues also should, and could, have been addressed in the nationwide
23
settlement agreement.
24
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25
(Issue Preclusion)
26
Plaintiffs claims are barred in part or in whole by the doctrine of issue preclusion on
27
grounds that include, but are not limited to, the following facts and circumstances: in December
28
2010 and effective January 2011, after a lengthy investigation and negotiation with a multi-state
M ANATT , P HELPS &

P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES
Plaintiffs claims are barred in part or in whole by the doctrine of claim preclusion on
314531387.1
11
AMENDED ANSWER
group of attorneys general, DIRECTV entered into a nationwide agreement with 50 states (and
the District of Columbia), resulting in 51 substantially similar judgments and consent orders. The
issues addressed by the investigation and in the orders cover the same conduct at issue in this
lawsuit: introductory discount price offers for satellite TV program packages, the requirement of
a two year commitment to obtain the introductory pricing, how long the promotional price
remains in effect, the disclosure of the regular price, the possible imposition of early cancellation
fees, and roll to pay premium channel offers. The FTC was invited to participate in the
negotiation and resolution of those issues before the settlement was finalized but declined. There
has never been an enforcement proceeding brought against DIRECTV by any state or the District
10
of Columbia based on the multi-state agreement, and DIRECTV has relied, in part, on the
11
requirements of that agreement in designing its advertising disclosures. The FTC has been aware
12
of the multi-state agreement and DIRECTVs advertising since late 2010 and did not take any
13
formal action against the company on the issues implicated by the multi-state agreement until
14
2015. Regardless of the nationwide settlement agreement, it would be inequitable for Plaintiff to
15
seek injunctive, monetary, or other equitable relief extending back for almost a decade based on
16
at least the foregoing. To the extent any new issues are raised by Plaintiff in this lawsuit, which
17
Defendants deny, those issues also should, and could, have been addressed in the nationwide
18
settlement agreement.
19
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20
(Previous Nationwide Settlement Agreement)
21
22
to, the following facts and circumstances: in December 2010 and effective January 2011, after a
23
lengthy investigation and negotiation with a multi-state group of attorneys general, DIRECTV
24
entered into a nationwide agreement with 50 states (and the District of Columbia), resulting in 51
25
substantially similar judgments and consent orders. The issues addressed by the investigation and
26
in the orders cover the same conduct at issue in this lawsuit: introductory discount price offers for
27
satellite TV program packages, the requirement of a two year commitment to obtain the
28
introductory pricing, how long the promotional price remains in effect, the disclosure of the
M ANATT , P HELPS &

P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES
Plaintiffs claims are barred in part or in whole on grounds that include, but are not limited
314531387.1
12
AMENDED ANSWER
regular price, the possible imposition of early cancellation fees, and roll to pay premium channel
offers. The FTC was invited to participate in the negotiation and resolution of those issues before
the settlement was finalized but declined. There has never been an enforcement proceeding
brought against DIRECTV by any state or the District of Columbia based on the multi-state
agreement, and DIRECTV has relied, in part, on the requirements of that agreement in designing
its advertising disclosures. The FTC has been aware of the multi-state agreement and
DIRECTVs advertising since late 2010 and did not take any formal action against the company
on the issues implicated by the multi-state agreement until 2015. Regardless of the nationwide
settlement agreement, it would be inequitable for Plaintiff to seek injunctive, monetary, or other
10
11
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12
(Good Faith Belief And Conduct)
13
The acts and statements of Defendants were fair and reasonable and were performed in
14
good faith based on all the relevant facts known to Defendants. Defendants acted with a good
15
faith belief that they had good cause and/or legitimate business reasons to act as they did and did
16
not directly or indirectly perform any acts that would constitute a violation of consumers rights.
17
As a consequence, Plaintiff is not entitled to any damages whatsoever.
18
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19
(Reservation Of Other Affirmative Defenses)
20
Defendants lack sufficient information of all the facts and evidence surrounding the
21
subject incident and are therefore unable to ascertain at this time any additional affirmative
22
defenses which Defendants may have. Therefore, Defendants expressly reserve the right to
23
amend this Answer to assert such other affirmative defenses as may become apparent subsequent
24
to the filing of this Answer, whether in discovery, at trial, or otherwise.
25
DEFENDANTS PRAYER FOR RELIEF
26
WHEREFORE, DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC respectfully request that this Court:
27
1.
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES
equitable relief extending back for almost a decade based on at least the foregoing.
Dismiss Plaintiffs complaint with prejudice as to DIRECTV and DIRECTV,
LLC;
314531387.1
13
AMENDED ANSWER
1
2
3
4
5
2.
Order that Plaintiff take nothing by reason of the complaint, that Plaintiff is
entitled to no relief, and that judgment be rendered in favor of DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC;
3.
Award DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC its costs and expenses incurred in
connection with this action; and

4.
Grant DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC such other relief as the Court deems proper.
6
7
Dated: May 15, 2015
8
9
By: /s/ Chad S. Hummel

Chad S. Hummel
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
M ANATT , P HELPS &
P HILLIPS , LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
LOS A NG EL ES
314531387.1
14
AMENDED ANSWER

FTC Directv

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FTC Directv

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case3:15-cv-01129-HSG Document25 Filed05/15/15 Page1 of 17

CHAD S. HUMMEL (Bar No. CA 139055)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

No. 3:15-cv-01129 HSG

NOTICE OF LODGING OF AMENDED

DIRECTV, LLC, a limited liability

Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.,

March 11, 2015

Case3:15-cv-01129-HSG Document25 Filed05/15/15 Page2 of 17

TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants DIRECTV and DIRECTV, LLC

Answer. The Amended Answer is hereby attached as Exhibit A.

Dated: May 15, 2015

MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP

By: /s/ Chad S. Hummel

Case3:15-cv-01129-HSG Document25 Filed05/15/15 Page3 of 17

Case3:15-cv-01129-HSG Document25 Filed05/15/15 Page4 of 17

CHAD S. HUMMEL (Bar No. CA 139055)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

DIRECTV, LLC, a limited liability

No. 3:15-cv-01129 HSG

Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United

March 11, 2015

hereby answer the Complaint (complaint) filed by Plaintiff FEDERAL TRADE

COMMISSION (hereinafter Plaintiff or FTC), as follows:

Case3:15-cv-01129-HSG Document25 Filed05/15/15 Page5 of 17

ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT

Paragraph 1 contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the

statutory remedy as alleged is warranted.

JURISDICTION, VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

Communications Commission (FCC) has exclusive enforcement authority.

under, for example, 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).

Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 5.

Case3:15-cv-01129-HSG Document25 Filed05/15/15 Page6 of 17

Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 7, except that DIRECTV, LLC is

subject of the complaint.

listed in this Paragraph. Hereinafter, any admissions by Defendants to allegations of the

generally and specifically denied.

DEFENDANTS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES

Defendants admit that DIRECTV offers direct-to-home satellite television service

contained in Paragraph 11.

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 except as follows:

M ANATT , P HELPS &

Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 9.

Case3:15-cv-01129-HSG Document25 Filed05/15/15 Page7 of 17

subscription services, including, in certain instances, promotional pricing offers, in a variety of

satellite television subscription programming packages are periodically adjusted to reflect

Defendants admit that DIRECTVs programming subscriptions may include, at the

consumers. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 14.

Defendants admit that DIRECTV, Inc. entered into a Multistate Settlement

M ANATT , P HELPS &

Case3:15-cv-01129-HSG Document25 Filed05/15/15 Page8 of 17

allegations contained in Paragraph 15.

Defendants admit that DIRECTV has disseminated advertisements for its

Defendants deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 17.

Defendants admit that certain DIRECTV advertisements have described an offer

agreement [] IF BY THE END OF PROMOTIONAL PRICE PERIOD(S) CUSTOMER DOES