Learn what Cox lawsuits are out there, and how to take action…
Cox has been involved in many lawsuits in recent years, but there is often confusion around what sort of suits might be allowed.
Here is what you need to know about suing Cox:
Like many legal questions, the answer is “it’s complicated.”
As with many other internet service providers, Cox tries their best to ensure that their best interests are considered. Your Cox subscriber agreement will often include language saying that you cannot sue them in most types of legal courts. However, consumers will always have the option to file a lawsuit against Cox in a small claims court, or to file a consumer arbitration claim against them.
We’re biased, but consumer arbitration is often the better option. It’s also the one we can help with!
Class Action lawsuits are designed to bring together a class of individuals with the same complaint. However, if you’re a Cox customer, you often won’t have the option to file or join a class action.
Because of your Cox contract, there will often be specific wording that prevents you from jumping into any Class Action that you find (this has not always been the case, and the story of why can be an interesting read).
The following Cox lawsuits are usually lawsuits against Cox filed by a government entity (which have more legal options than consumers), long-running older lawsuits, or corporate disputes involving Cox.
At FairShake, we’re reinventing the Cox lawsuit process. Cox complaints are common, and many consumers often have the same questions regarding their legal rights with the company. Rather than going after a Cox Class Action suit — which is usually not even possible — we’ll file a personalized legal document with the company, and guide you through the legal process.
There are a bunch of ways to make a claim against Cox, including with the FCC or your credit card provider.
But your legal options typically involve one of two paths:
Cox Lawsuit on False Advertising and Contract Problems
A class-action lawsuit was filed against Cox Communications for allegedly falsely advertising its residential internet services. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company advertises “blazing fast” and “reliable” internet speeds that it does not deliver. In addition, plaintiffs claim that the company falsely promises that consumers who purchase residential internet services will not be bound by any contracts when, according to the complaint, the company does try to bind its customers to contracts. The complaint was filed in state court in May 2018, amended in June 2018, and transferred to federal court in June 2018. (Ehrman et al v. Cox Communications, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-1125, C. D. CA.)
Cox Lawsuit on Privacy and Environmental Damage
The allegations in a civil lawsuit, filed by the state attorney general in San Diego Superior Court May 17, could affect you no matter how you get your cable, phone or internet service.
State prosecutors want Cox Communications to pay penalties and costs for two significant violations.
The lawsuit alleges that Cox employees threw away customer records without shredding or erasing personal information.
The lawsuit also claims Cox ignored state health, safety and environmental protection laws, by wrongly disposing of old equipment at offices throughout San Diego.
Cox Lawsuit on Music Piracy
On the verge of going to trial a second time on claims of not doing enough on the piracy front, Cox Communications has settled with BMG Rights Management — which administers the rights to works by David Bowie, Bruno Mars, Frank Ocean and many other artists.
The closely-watched case in the entertainment industry tested an internet service provider’s responsibilities for policing the copyright infringing actions of its users. BMG hired Rightscorp, which flagged nearly two million instances of infringement and informed Cox that its users were uploading and downloading music using BitTorrent. In 2015, a trial was held in Virginia on BMG’s claim of contributory copyright infringement. The jury delivered a $25 million verdict.
In a decision upholding the verdict, U.S. District Court Judge Liam O’Grady slammed what he said was “essentially a thirteen-strike policy” on the part of Cox — one which Cox feigned cooperation with by sending warnings to users, and sometimes suspensions, but hardly ever the termination of service.
Cox Lawsuit with AT&T over Hardware Dispute
AT&T has sued Cox Communications, saying that Cox has infringed seven AT&T patents covering everything from DVRs to methods for hiding “packet loss or frame erasure” over a network.
In its complaint, AT&T claims it “provided a detailed explanation” of how Cox’s products infringe its patents during meetings that took place in 2009 and 2010.
“Despite years of protracted negotiations, Cox has sought to avoid payment for its infringement by repeatedly delaying and rescheduling negotiations,” wrote AT&T lawyers in the complaint, filed in federal court in Delaware. “Given every opportunity, Cox has failed to provide substantial arguments for either non-infringement or invalidity of AT&T’s patents. Cox’s conduct constitutes a steadfast refusal to take a license, even though Cox generates billions of dollars in revenue every year through its use of AT&T’s technologies.”
Cox Lawsuit with Sprint over Patent Infringement
On Thursday, January 18th, Overland Park, KS-based telecom firm Sprint Corporation (NYSE:S) and Atlanta, GA-based broadband provider Cox Communications announced a multi-year business agreement resulting from the settlement of a patent infringement case between the two companies. The settlement, which is “designed to strengthen each company,” provides a brief glimpse into how a patent squabble can be resolved for the betterment of all parties involved in the case.
Sprint first filed a complaint for patent infringement against Cox in the District of Kansas back in December 2011. A series of 12 patents were asserted in the case, which were developed due in large part to the work of a Sprint technologist in the mid-1990s, resulting in a series of architectures and processes to support Voice-over-Packet (VoP) technology which enabled the seamless routing of telephone calls over disparate packet-based networks. The complaint alleged that Cox’s digital telephony services infringed on the patents-in-suit.
Cox Lawsuit on Cable Box Problems
OKLAHOMA CITY (Legal Newsline) – After a jury awarded plaintiffs $6.31M, trebled to $19M, in an antitrust class action lawsuit against Cox Communications, the cable telecommunications company breathed a sigh of relief when a judge overturned the jury’s verdict.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that Cox violated the Sherman Act by illegally tying its premium cable services to its set-top box rentals. They also alleged that Cox created barriers preventing other companies from offering third-party set-top boxes.
Cox argued that it rents out the boxes because users need the boxes to use the services provided by the company and that there was no other place users could get them. Other services brought into question were interactive content, program guides, pay-per-view and parental controls.
Cox Lawsuit over Unwanted Robocalls
In a new class action lawsuit, plaintiffs claim that Cox Communications Inc., a cable and telecommunications company, uses an “automatic telephone dialing system to place non-emergency calls to numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, without prior express consent.”
An Arizona plaintiff alleges Cox made calls to her cell phone on a number of occasions between July 2015 and May 2016, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Arizona plaintiff contends that the calls to her number were intended for another recipient. She argues therefore, that based on the number of telephone calls being made and the additional use of an “artificial or prerecorded voice,” that the defendant placed these calls by using an automatic telephone dialing system.