Slingbox Class Action Defendant Seeks Dismissal of Unwanted Ad Lawsuit

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.

Last week, Sling Media Inc. urged a New York federal judge to dismiss a class action lawsuit that accuses the company of misrepresenting its advertising policy for its streaming service.

Sling manufactures a device called the Slingbox, which allows a user to watch television on mobile devices such as phones, laptops and tablets. In late 2014, Sling began including unsolicited advertisements next to the streaming content, the Slingbox class action lawsuit alleges.

The Slingbox lawsuit, filed in July 2015, alleges Sling started including the advertisements on its digital TV streaming service without obtaining permission from consumers. Plaintiffs Michael Heskiaoff and Marc Langenohl claim they started receiving unsolicited pop-up spam advertisements when they used the service, and that neither of them consented to receiving the ads when they decided to purchase Slingbox.

Heskiaoff and Langenohl accused Sling of failing to inform them at the time they purchased their Slingboxes that the company intended to add advertising to the Slingbox service.

In its motion supporting dismissal of the case, Sling argues that the plaintiffs have changed the allegations in their Slingbox class action lawsuit but have failed to support the claims. Sling says that for the plaintiffs to have standing in their class action lawsuit, they must allege that they purchased their Slingboxes during the brief window of time in which Sling had plans to include advertisements but had not yet implemented the advertising.

“Plaintiffs must allege that Sling had knowledge of the alleged ‘defect’ – that third-party advertising would be added in the future – at the time plaintiffs purchased their Slingbox units,” Sling argues. “Plaintiffs do not make this allegation and are thus missing a crucial fact necessary for their standing.”

Further, Sling argues that the plaintiffs do not have standing to allege that the ads negatively affected their viewing experience. “To assert that Sling Ads negatively affected Plaintiffs’ viewing experiences, Plaintiffs must allege that they purchased their Slingbox units before Sling introduced the Sling Ads; otherwise, Plaintiffs’ viewing experience did not change,” Sling argues.

The plaintiffs also fail to allege that they have actually seen any advertising when using the streaming service, Sling argues. Therefore, it is not clear that they have actually been affected by Sling advertising. In addition, they have not shown that they have suffered any monetary losses or other damages due to the advertising.

“Plaintiffs’ allegations make clear that they are frustrated about the Sling Ads, but this frustration is not actionable,” Sling argues. “Because no damages are alleged, Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed.”

The plaintiffs are represented by Adam Gonnelli of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, Robert I. Lax of Lax LLP and Steven S. Siegel of The Law Office Of Steven S. Siegel PLLC.

The Slingbox Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Heskiaoff, et al v. Sling Media Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-5388, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.