The Supreme Court will hold oral argument in Apple v. Robert Pepper, docket 17-204, on Nov. 26, the high court announced this week (see 1810020047). Apple appealed a class-action antitrust lawsuit alleging it monopolized distribution of App Store applications.

Dish Network can't be blamed for the actions of "a rogue contractor," but the lower court was more interested in punishing Dish than in correctly defining the class of class-action plaintiffs who received telemarketing calls, the company said in a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opening brief (in Pacer, docket 18-1518) Thursday. Dish also said plaintiffs Thomas Krakauer and others should sue the party that made the calls, Dish contractor Satellite Systems Network, for the alleged Telephone Consumer Protection Act violations. Dish is seeking a decertification of the class and reversal or vacation of the $60 million judgment. Krakauer counsel didn't comment Friday. Dish and the plaintiffs repeatedly clashed over class membership issues before the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina (see 1801040009).

Two of the lawsuits against Sinclair, Tribune, Gray and other large broadcasters over advertising price collusion (see 1807310054) were consolidated and transferred to U.S. District Court in Chicago, said an order (in Pacer) Thursday from the U.S. District Court judicial panel on multidistrict litigation. The potential class-action lawsuits were filed after reports emerged DOJ was investigating the broadcast groups for conspiring to fix ad prices. Though the order transferred only cases filed in Maryland and Illinois, the plaintiffs expect 15 similar cases in other districts to be transferred to the same court, they said in a filing Thursday. “These actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation” the panel said. Friday, the companies didn’t comment.

DOJ can appear during oral argument in Apple’s appeal of a class-action antitrust lawsuit alleging it monopolized distribution of App Store applications (see 1806180053), the Supreme Court decided Monday in Apple v. Robert Pepper, et al., docket 17-204. The solicitor general in May asked the court to grant Apple's petition, arguing the 9th Circuit misapplied Illinois Brick preventing indirect purchasers from seeking certain antitrust damages passed on by third parties (see 1805090051). States have “allowed indirect purchasers to sue under state antitrust law, leading to decades of experience that contradict the predictions and policy judgments underlying Illinois Brick,” 31 states argued in favor of Pepper. Computer & Communications Industry Association argued in favor of Apple, saying pass-through harm leads to duplicative damages claims in conflict with the high court’s precedents. Illinois Brick “preserves standing for a direct purchaser to recover damages for overcharges, whether or not those charges are passed along to downstream customers,” BSA|The Software Alliance argued. Open Markets Institute argued “Apple falsely implies its app store is a neutral and open marketplace. … Through contractual and technical restrictions, the company compels owners of iPhones and developers of iPhone apps to conduct business solely on its App Store and on its terms.”

Sony Music is shortchanging the estate of late singer-songwriter Rick Nelson by withholding royalties due from international streaming sales of his recordings, breaching his 1976 contract with then-CBS Records, alleged a Tuesday complaint (in Pacer) in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The label agreed to pay Nelson a basic 24 percent royalty on net sales, with twice-yearly accounting statements, said the contract (in Pacer). The complaint seeks class-action status on behalf of artists who signed similar agreements with CBS Records, later renamed Sony Music after Sony America bought the label in 1987. Nelson, who died in a 1985 plane crash, released more than 30 albums, “almost all of which” made the Billboard Top 100, said the complaint. Top 10 hits including “Poor Little Fool,” No. 1 in 1958, and “Travelin’ Man,” top in 1961, it said. Sony Music “impermissably” assesses an “intercompany charge” for its international sales that takes up to 68 percent “off the top” of global revenue earned from streaming sales, said the complaint. It “bases the artist’s royalty rate on the remainder, which methodology directly violates” the 1976 contract, it said: Sony Music “underreports revenue generated from foreign sales” by “improperly” applying the intercompany charge. Wednesday, Sony Music declined comment.

Record company litigation alleging copyright infringement should be dismissed because it's outside the three-year statute of limitations and because any such infringement was "innocent and ... not willful," Cox Communications replied (in Pacer, docket 18-cv-00950) Monday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia. Cox said the claims of contributory liability are barred because it didn't have knowledge of the alleged primary infringement by some subscribers and didn't cause or encourage it, nor did it materially contribute. The ISP said statutory damages sought are "unconstitutionally excessive" and out of proportion to actual damages. A counterclaim sought declaratory judgment that it's not liable for contributory infringement of the works in question and a declaratory judgment it's not vicariously liable for infringement by third parties of those works. Cox also moved (in Pacer) to transfer the venue to the U.S. District Court in Atlanta, saying the claims and plaintiffs have no particular tie to the Virginia court, but the suit was likely filed there because that court previously handled BMG v. Cox. Cox said the Atlanta court is where Cox is headquartered and where most relevant witnesses and evidence are. The music companies' outside counsel didn't comment Tuesday. Cox is seen facing a challenge in this latest suit after the BMG litigation (see 1808020009).

A civil complaint against Hulu and Netflix alleging the streaming services aren't paying required video service provider fees to Missouri municipalities is now in federal court, according to a joint notice of removal last week in U.S. District Court in St. Louis. The defendants said (in Pacer, docket 18-cv-01495-SNLJ) that federal court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act since the putative class is more than 100; the plaintiff -- Creve Coeur, Missouri -- is a citizen of a different state than the defendants; and the relief the plaintiff seeks could add up to more than $5 million. In the complaint, filed in July in St. Louis County Circuit Court, Creve Coeur alleged Hulu and Netflix provide video programming over wireline facilities located even partly in public rights of way, as covered in the state's Video Services Providers Act, and need to pay required fees.

U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of Philadelphia preliminarily approved a settlement and certified the class in litigation alleging Comcast tied rental of its set-top boxes to subscribing to premium cable packages, breaking the Sherman Act and state laws, said a docket 09-md-02034-AB opinion (in Pacer) Wednesday. Comcast would pay $15.5 million.

Roku is infringing nine Universal Electronics patents in “four patent families and two general technology categories: remote control set-up and touchscreen remotes,” alleged Universal in a complaint (in Pacer) Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, California. Roku is "a relative newcomer to home entertainment control,” compared with Universal, which has a 30-year history and owns more than 350 home entertainment patents, said the complaint. Roku and Universal had a “mutually successful previous business relationship,” until Roku “decided to forgo” licensing key Universal IP that’s “prevalent in a number of Roku’s home entertainment products,” it said. Having tried but failed “to reach an acceptable business solution” with Roku, Universal “brings this suit to secure appropriate relief and ensure adequate compensation” for Roku’s unauthorized use of its technology, it said. Roku declined comment.

Another law firm filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status against Sinclair and former-merger partner Tribune accusing them of colluding over advertising rates, in a complaint filed Friday (in Pacer) in U.S. District Court in Maryland. A similar suit was filed last month by an Arkansas law firm (see 1807310054). As in the other case, MyPhillyLawyer bought ads from the companies sued on behalf of itself and other advertisers. Like the previous suit, this one refers to reports of DOJ investigating advertising collusion by the companies. Sinclair, Tribune and MyPhillyLawyer didn’t comment.