Quantcast

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RECORD

Friday, May 3, 2024

Peacock customers: Streaming service can't use 'mass arbitration' clause to kill their claims

Lawsuits
Webp law harrington jeffrey

Jeffrey Harrington | Zimmerman Reed LLP

A group of Peacock streaming service customers have sued the TV entertainment provider, asking a court to prohibit Peacock's use of a "mass arbitration" provision to settle disputes.  

"The business community has worked extremely hard over the decades to convince the courts that individual arbitration is good for consumers and class action waivers by consumers are acceptable," said the lawsuit, originally filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court and later transferred to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

The U.S. Supreme Court has in many cases sided with the business community on arbitration, the suit said.

"The business community, including members of Peacock's corporate family, has taken full advantage of the Court's embrace of its pro-arbitration arguments by funneling disputes to arbitration and seeking orders to compel arbitration," the lawsuit states.

In order to subscribe to the Peacock streaming service, customers have to agree to a "Mass Arbitration" provision, which requires disputes to be arbitrated before an arbitrator, the lawsuit states. The arbiter, ADR, requires customers to pay a $250 nonrefundable initial filing fees and a $295 nonrefundable administrative fee, for a total of $545, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs have individual claims against Peacock "for its disclosure of Petitioner's personally identifiable information to a third party without Petitioner's consent in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act," the lawsuit states.

The mass arbitration provision is "both procedurally and substantively unconscionable," the lawsuit states.

It seeks a court order that the mass arbitration provision "does not apply to any Petitioner or their claim," and that instead Peacock must present the disputes to a different arbitration service, JAMS. JAMS charges customers $250, the suit says. 

The plaintiffs also seek attorney fees and court costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Caleb Marker and Jeff Harrington of Zimmerman Reed LLP, of Los Angeles and Minneapolis.

Amescua v. Peacock TV LLC, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, 2:23-cv-09573.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News