Serrano v. Cablevision Systems Corp.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42152
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Cablevision provides Optimum Online high-speed internet to Plaintiffs Serrano and Londono under click-wrap and work-order contracts incorporating an Acceptable Use Policy.
- Plaintiffs allege Cablevision throttled P2P applications by manipulating TCP, including forged reset packets, selective dropping, or blocking connections.
- Contracts and policies allowed Cablevision to restrict bandwidth in its sole discretion to protect network integrity, with no liability for such actions.
- Plaintiffs claim CFAA violations and various state-law misrepresentations related to service quality and speed.
- Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory/injunctive relief; Defendants move for summary judgment and strike affidavits; court denies strike and grants judgment for Defendants on all claims.
- Londono’s work order explicitly incorporates Terms of Service; Serrano clicked “Agree” to terms; both forms of assent are enforceable under New York law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CFAA viability under contract terms | CFAA claim survives without authorization | Contract authorized bandwidth restrictions | CFAA claims dismissed; authorized restrictions negate 'without authorization' |
| Contract formation validity | Plaintiffs did not form enforceable contract; ambiguity | Click-wrap and work orders formed valid contracts | Londono and Serrano validly contractually bound to Terms of Service |
| Contract interpretation under NY law | Terms are vague/ambiguous | Terms clearly authorize discretionary bandwidth limits | Terms unambiguous; Cablevision validly limited bandwidth |
| NY Gen. Bus. Law § 349 claim viability | Deceptive practices in service marketing | Disclosures fully informed; statements puffery | Claim dismissed with prejudice; statements are puffery |
| New Jersey CFA claim viability | Misrepresentation under NJ CFA | Disclosure in contract; no actionable misrepresentation | Claim dismissed with prejudice; disclosures bar claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Druyan v. Jagger, 508 F. Supp. 2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (enforceability of consumer contracts and disclosures under NY law)
- PaineWebber Inc. v. Bybyk, 81 F.3d 1193 (2d Cir. 1996) (contractual incorporation and read-before-sign doctrine)
- Nasik Breeding & Research Farm, Ltd. v. Merck & Co., 165 F. Supp. 2d 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (puffery and non-actionable statements; contract disclosures)
- Lerner v. Fleet Bank, 459 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006) (fraud elements; puffery; reliance implications)
- Juice v. Evian Waters, 87 F.3d 604 (2d Cir. 1996) (quasi-contract precludes unjust enrichment where contract governs)