LSSI Data Corp. v. Comcast Phone, LLC
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20207
11th Cir.2012Background
- LSSi sued Comcast seeking direct access to Comcast's directory listing data (DALD) for LSSi, alleging nondiscrimination violations under 47 U.S.C. §§ 202, 222(e), and 251(b)(3).
- Comcast terminated direct data sharing with LSSi in 2011 and shifted data access through its data aggregator, Targus, which handles data processing and distribution.
- Targus is an agent of Comcast, not a direct directory publisher, and does not itself provide DA services or publish directories.
- FCC precedent and district court findings indicate nondiscriminatory access to DALDs is necessary for competition, but the district court found LSSi had a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, holding LSSi did not show a substantial likelihood of success under the Act's nondiscrimination provisions, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court abuse discretion on substantial likelihood of success? | LSSi argues Comcast discriminates via Targus against LSSi under §222(e), §251(b)(3), and §202(a). | Comcast contends the agent relationship with Targus and lack of direct competition with LSSi negate discrimination claims; the district court erred in assuming discrimination existed. | Yes; the court abused its discretion on substantial likelihood of success. |
| Does §222(e) require nondiscriminatory terms when DALDs are provided through an agent? | LSSi asserts discriminatory terms via Targus breach §222(e). | Targus is not a director publisher; differences in access through Targus vs. direct access do not violate §222(e). | No substantial likelihood; no violation proven at this stage. |
| Does §251(b)(3) prohibit discrimination where the agent is not a competing carrier? | LSSi claims Comcast via Targus discriminates between LSSi and itself; §251(b)(3) requires nondiscriminatory access. | Targus is not a LEC or DA provider; discrimination cannot be shown under §251(b)(3) unless Targus is a comparable participant. | No substantial likelihood; insufficient record to show discrimination under §251(b)(3). |
| Does §202(a) allow a single agent to fulfill nondiscrimination obligations without unjust discrimination? | Comcast's use of a single agent to manage DALD access could be unjustly discriminatory against LSSi. | No evidence shows the agent arrangement is unjust or unreasonable; no competitive advantage proven. | No substantial likelihood; record does not prove unreasonable discrimination under §202(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- BellSouth Telecomm., Inc. v. MCIMetro Access Transmission Servs., LLC, 425 F.3d 964 (11th Cir. 2005) (test for preliminary injunction elements and abuse of discretion)
- Warren Publ’g, Inc. v. Microdos Data Corp., 115 F.3d 1509 (11th Cir. 1997) (burden-shifting framework for preliminary injunctions)
- CBS Broad., Inc. v. EchoStar Comm. Corp., 265 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir. 2001) (burdens at the preliminary injunction stage; prima facie showing required)