Communications, Media & Privacy

Our Litigation Department regularly teams up with the firm’s Communications & Media Department to represent cable television operators, networks, television and film studios, Internet service providers, online content providers, competitive local exchange carriers, long-distance service providers, and other clients.

These litigation services have involved a vast array of cutting-edge issues and developments in the communications and media industries, including representing clients in:

  • Regulatory approval and related proceedings for complex and significant transactions before the Department of Justice and Federal Communications Commission (FCC);
  • Litigations, arbitrations, and negotiations relating to programming licenses and renewals for film, cable television networks, and regional sports networks, involving major cable television operators, satellite service providers, and online video distributors;
  • Retransmission consent negotiations and disputes involving broadcast programming;
  • Rulemaking and adjudicatory proceedings before the FCC;
  • Appeals of FCC rules and regulations;
  • Mandamus proceedings against federal agencies;
  • Network rebrands; and
  • Complex commercial litigations.

The Litigation Department has also helped advise and represent clients in data privacy matters, including resolving data security breaches and related concerns.

  • Applications of Comcast Corp., General Electric Co. and NBCUniversal, Inc. For Consent to Assign Licenses and Transfer Control of Licensees, Order, 27 FCC Rcd. 15053 (MB 2012) (represent Comcast and NBCUniversal in seeking clarification of “Benchmark Condition” in FCC order approving Comcast/NBCUniversal transaction).
  • In the Matter of Arbitration between Project Concord, Inc., Claimant, and NBCUniversal Media, LLC, Respondent, MB Docket No. 10-56, DA 12-1958, Order on Review (FCC Nov. 13, 2012) (represented NBCUniversal in arbitration over licensing of NBCUniversal television and Universal film programming to online video distributor).
  • Applications of Comcast Corp., General Electric Co. and NBCUniversal, Inc. For Consent to Assign Licenses and Transfer Control of Licensees, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd. 4238 (2011) (represented Comcast in FCC review and approval of Comcast/NBCUniversal transaction).
  • COMPTEL v. FCC, No. 11-1262, Petition for Writ of Mandamus (D.C. Cir. filed July 15, 2011) (represented consortium of competitive local exchange carriers in seeking FCC action in special access rulemaking).
  • Cablevision Sys. Corp. v. FCC, 597 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (represented Comcast in appeal of FCC program access rules).
  • In the Matter of Arbitration Between Dish Network, L.L.C., Claimant, and Comcast Corporation and Comcast SportsNet California, Respondents, American Arbitration Association Case No. 16-472-E-00211-10, Arbitration Decision (Nov. 23, 2010) (represented Comcast in arbitrations over renewal of multiyear carriage agreements for regional sports networks).
  • United Church of Christ Office of Commc’ns v. FCC, No. 08-3245 (6th Cir. July 25, 2008) (order granting stay of agency order) (represented Comcast in appeal and successful stay of FCC leased access rules).
  • In the Matter of Arbitration Between DIRECTV, Inc., Claimant, v. Comcast Corporation, Respondent, American Arbitration Association Case No. 71-472-E-00122-09 (represented Comcast in arbitrations over renewal of multiyear carriage agreements for regional sports networks).
  • APCC Servs., Inc. v. Sprint Commc’ns Co., 489 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. granted, 552 U.S. 1087 (2008) (represented Sprint in challenge to standing of third-party aggregators to seek compensation for payphone providers under FCC rules).
  • In the Matter of Arbitration Between The America Channel, LLC, Claimant, and Comcast Corporation, Respondent, American Arbitration Association Case No. 14-494-E-00217-07 (represented Comcast in arbitration over proposed network’s demands for carriage on Comcast cable systems).
  • Southwestern Bell Tel., L.P. v. Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 461 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (E.D. Mo. 2006), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1099 (2009) (represented Sprint in successful defense of interconnection agreement requirements with incumbent local exchange provider).
  • Covad Commc'ns Co. v. FCC, 450 F.3d 528 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (represented coalition of competitive local exchange carriers in successful defense of FCC access rules).
  • APCC Servs., Inc. v. Sprint Commc’ns Co., 418 F.3d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2005), reh’g denied, 04-7034, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 24400 (Nov. 10, 2005) (represented Sprint in challenge to private right of action under FCC compensation rules).
  • Sprint Corp. v. FCC, 315 F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (represented Sprint in obtaining reversal of FCC compensation rules).