|
4513 A cable provider’s practice of requiring that persons wanting music service purchase television service was not an unlawful tying arrangement under the federal Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act; since it was permitted by law, it was not unfair; the provider’s use of the passive voice in stating that television service is required for subscribers who want music service was not deceptive; the practice therefore did not give rise to actions under the Unfair Competition Law or the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; since the practice applied equally to blind and sighted purchasers, it did not violate the Unruh Civil Rights Act.CitationBELTON v COMCAST CABLE (Music Stations) 151 CA4 1224 [See: B&PC 17200 etseq; CivC 51, 1781; Freeman v SD Assn. of Realtors 77 CA4 171, T/AT 2/00; Jefferson Parish v Hyde 466 US 2; Cel-Tech v LA Cellular 20 C4 163, T/AT 5/99]
|
|
