Judge Stays Comcast Xfinity Public Wi-Fi Class Action, Compels Arbitration

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A Comcast class action lawsuit, alleging that the cable company let its customers bear the cost of its Xfinity public wi-fi system, was stayed, or suspended, by a California federal judge, and arbitration compelled.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White says in his March 3 order to stay the class action lawsuit and to compel arbitration that he made his decision because plaintiffs Toyer Grear and Jocelyn Harris agreed to the arbitration provision in their service agreement with Comcast and that the arbitration provision does cover their allegations against Comcast in the matter.

Grear and Harris filed this Comcast class action lawsuit on Dec. 14, 2014 as Comcast customers, who use the company’s Xfinity Wi-Fi Service. Harris signed the Comcast contract, which provided service to both Grear and Harris.

“According to Plaintiffs, Comcast has begun to lease wireless routers to its customers, including Plaintiffs, that are equipped to provide its customers with a Wi-Fi signal for their homes,” the order explained. “These new routers also include an additional signal that can be accessed by the public.”

However, Harris and Grear allege that their authorization was not obtained by Comcast “to use their wireless router to broadcast these additional ‘hotspots’ to the public.”

According to Judge White, there is no dispute between Comcast and the plaintiffs that the service agreement signed by Harris included an arbitration provision.

While Comcast does allow its customers to “opt-out of the Arbitration Provision, it is undisputed that plaintiffs have not opted out,” the California federal judge wrote in the order to stay the class action lawsuit.

According to the terms of the service agreement, if Comcast customers have a dispute, they “may elect to arbitrate [a] dispute.”

Under federal law, as detailed in the Federal Arbitration Act, Judge White explains that “‘once [the Court] is satisfied that an agreement for arbitration has been made and has not been honored,’ and the dispute falls within the scope of that agreement, the Court must order arbitration.”

The plaintiffs do not dispute the validity of the arbitration agreement, the California federal judge explained, but “they oppose Comcast’s motion on the basis that none of their claims fall within the scope of the Arbitration Provision.”

Grear and Harris argue that the allegations in their Comcast class action lawsuit ought to be “excluded from arbitration, because the claims related to unauthorized ‘use.'”

“Comcast argues that each of Plaintiffs’ claims relate to disputes over unauthorized use of their equipment, not service, and it contends the [service agreement] clearly distinguishes the term equipment from the term service,” and therefore plaintiffs ough not be excluded from arbitration.

Judge White concluded that “because the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated that issue to the arbitrator,” and the matter falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement, he  concluded that the class action lawsuit would be suspended at this point and arbitration compelled.

However, the California federal judge did say that he wants Comcast and the plaintiffs to file a joint status report in 120 days.

Grear is represented by Gillian Leigh Wade, with Milstein Adelman in Santa Monica.

Comcast is represented by Michael James Stortz, with Drinker Biddle in San Francisco.

The Comcast Xfinity Class Action Lawsuit is Toyer Grear et al. v. Comcast Corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-05333-JSW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.