Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—D. Conn.: CUTPA claim against DirecTV involving unauthorized satellite dish placement proceeds, (Aug 25, 2016)

By Michael Menzhuber, J.D., LL.M.

The federal district court in New Haven, Connecticut denied a motion to dismiss a class action suit that alleged a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act (CUTPA), stemming from the placement of DirecTV satellite dishes on landlords’ rental property without their consent. The court determined that the plaintiffs adequately established any business relationship requirement for a CUTPA claim and that it was premature to conclude that the proposed class definition was overly broad (Flynn v. DirecTV, LLC, August 23, 2016, Meyer, J.).

The owners of a residential rental property brought a class action suit against DirecTV and its installer MasTec Inc. after at least one DirecTV satellite dish was installed on their property without their consent, in violation of the CUTPA. According to the plaintiffs, DirecTV knew that the installation of a satellite dish required landlord consent. However, it circumvented this requirement by: (1) requiring the customer to sign a form stating that the landlord consented to the installation; and (2) not independently confirming that the landlord consent was actually given. The defendants moved for dismissal and to strike the class allegations.

CUTPA. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege the existence of a business relationship between themselves and the defendants. The court disagreed and concluded that: (1) CUTPA does not require a direct business relationship between a plaintiff and a defendant; and (2) that based on the facts presented, involving exploitation by the defendants of a business relationship between plaintiffs (landlords) and third-parties (tenants), any business relationship requirement for a CUTPA claim had been adequately established.

Class allegations. The court also denied the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ class claim alleging violation of CUTPA because it was premature to conclude that issues of individual consent would predominate or that the class would not be ascertainable.

With respect to the "predomination" requirement, the court noted that the CUTPA forbids business practices that violate public policy. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants employed a policy to remain willfully ignorant of whether landlord consent had been provided and that whether or not a landlord may have given consent did not make this practice any more scrupulous or proper.

With respect to the "ascertainable" requirement, the court noted that it was possible that the plaintiffs’ proposed class, which included all relevant Connecticut landlords who did not provide written consent, could be overbroad because it could include class members who gave their consent in another fashion. However, it could not yet conclude that the class was fatally overbroad or not ascertainable and that the plaintiffs should have an opportunity to refine their proposed class definition to address the concerns raised.

The case is No. 3:15-cv-1053 (JAM).

Attorneys: Bruce E. Newman (Brown Paindiris & Scott, LLP) for Jean M. Flynn. Hans J. Germann (Mayer Brown LLP) and Matthew Dallas Gordon (Matthew Dallas Gordon LLC) for DirecTV, LLC. Scott S. Orenstein (Goldberg Segalla LLP) for MasTec, Inc.

Companies: DirecTV, LLC; MasTec, Inc.

Cases: StateUnfairTradePractices ConnecticutNews