Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. Directv, Inc.

Citation497 F.3d 144
Decision Date09 August 2007
Docket NumberNo. 07-0468-cv.,07-0468-cv.
PartiesTIME WARNER CABLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DIRECTV, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

Saul B. Shapiro, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP (Sarah E. Zgliniec, Catherine A. Williams, on the brief), New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Daniel H. Bromberg, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA (Marc L. Greenwald, Sanford I. Weisburst, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, New York, NY; Michael E. Williams, Justin C. Griffin, A.J. Bedel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; and Margret Caruso, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, on the brief), for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: KEARSE, STRAUB, and POOLER, Circuit Judges.

STRAUB, Circuit Judge:

Defendant-Appellant DIRECTV, Inc. ("DIRECTV") appeals from the February 5, 2007 opinion and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Laura Taylor Swain, Judge) preliminarily enjoining it from disseminating, in any market in which Plaintiff-Appellee Time Warner Cable, Inc. ("TWC") provides cable service, certain television commercials and Internet advertisements found likely to violate the Lanham Act on literal falsity grounds. Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 475 F.Supp.2d 299 (S.D.N.Y.2007).

This appeal requires us to clarify certain aspects of our false advertising doctrine. We make three clarifications in particular. First, we hold that an advertisement can be literally false even though it does not explicitly make a false assertion, if the words or images, considered in context, necessarily and unambiguously imply a false message. Second, we decide that the category of non-actionable "puffery" encompasses visual depictions that, while factually inaccurate, are so grossly exaggerated that no reasonable consumer would rely on them in navigating the marketplace. Third, we conclude that the likelihood of irreparable harm may be presumed where the plaintiff demonstrates a likelihood of success in showing that the defendant's comparative advertisement is literally false and that given the nature of the market, it would be obvious to the viewing audience that the advertisement is targeted at the plaintiff, even though the plaintiff is not identified by name. Reviewing the District Court's decision under these principles, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND1
A. The Parties

TWC and DIRECTV are major players in the multichannel video service industry. TWC is the second-largest cable company in the United States, serving more than 13.4 million subscribers. Like all cable providers, TWC must operate through franchises let by local government entities; it is currently the franchisee in the greater part of New York City. DIRECTV is one of the country's largest satellite service providers, with more than 15.6 million customers nationwide. Because DIRECTV broadcasts directly via satellite, it is not subject to the same franchise limitations as cable companies. As a result, in the markets where TWC is the franchisee, DIRECTV and other satellite providers pose the greatest threat to its market share. The competition in these markets for new customers is extremely fierce, a fact to which the advertisements challenged in this case attest.

TWC offers both analog and digital television services to its customers. DIRECTV, on the other hand, delivers 100% of its programming digitally. Both companies, however, offer high-definition ("HD") service on a limited number of their respective channels. Transmitted at 1 a higher resolution than analog or traditional digital programming, HD provides the home viewer with theater-like picture quality on a wider screen. The picture quality of HD is governed by standards recommended by the Advanced Television Systems Committee ("ATSC"), an international non-profit organization that develops voluntary standards for digital television. To qualify as HD under ATSC standards, the screen resolution of a television picture must be at least 720p or 1080i.2 TWC and DIRECTV do not set or alter the screen resolution for HD programming provided by the networks; instead, they make available sufficient bandwidth to permit the HD level of resolution to pass on to their customers. To view programming in HD format, customers of either provider must have an HD television set.

There is no dispute, at least on the present record, that the HD programming provided by TWC and DIRECTV is equivalent in picture quality. In terms of non-HD programming, digital service generally yields better picture quality than analog service, because a digital signal is more resistant to interference. See Consumer Elecs. Ass'n v. F.C.C., 347 F.3d 291, 293-94 (D.C.Cir.2003). That said, TWC's analog cable service satisfies the technical specifications, e.g. signal level requirements and signal leakage limits, set by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"). See 47 C.F.R. § 76.1, et seq. According to a FCC fact sheet, analog service that meets these specifications produces a picture that is "high enough in quality to provide enjoyable viewing with barely perceptible impairments."

B. DIRECTV's "SOURCE MATTERS" Campaign

In the fall of 2006, DIRECTV launched a multimedia advertising campaign based on the theme of "SOURCE MATTERS." The concept of the campaign was to educate consumers that to obtain HD-standard picture quality, it is not enough to buy an HD television set; consumers must also receive HD programming from the "source," i.e., the television service provider.

1. Jessica Simpson Commercial

As part of its new campaign, DIRECTV began running a television commercial in October 2006 featuring celebrity Jessica Simpson. In the commercial, Simpson, portraying her character of Daisy Duke from the movie The Dukes of Hazzard, says to some of her customers at the local diner:

Simpson: Y'all ready to order?

Hey, 253 straight days at the gym to get this body and you're not gonna watch me on DIRECTV HD?

You're just not gonna get the best picture out of some fancy big screen TV without DIRECTV.

It's broadcast in 1080i. I totally don't know what that means, but I want it.

The original version of the commercial concluded with a narrator saying, "For picture quality that beats cable, you've got to get DIRECTV."

In response to objections by TWC, and pursuant to agreements entered into by the parties, DIRECTV pulled the original version of the commercial and replaced it with a revised one ("Revised Simpson Commercial"), which began airing in early December 2006. The Revised Simpson Commercial is identical to the original, except that it ends with a different tag line: "For an HD picture that can't be beat, get DIRECTV."

2. William Shatner Commercial

DIRECTV debuted another commercial in October 2006, featuring actor William Shatner as Captain James T. Kirk, his character from the popular Star Trek television show and film series. The following conversation takes place on the Starship Enterprise:

Mr. Chekov: Should we raise our shields, Captain?

Captain Kirk: At ease, Mr. Chekov.

Again with the shields. I wish he'd just relax and enjoy the amazing picture clarity of the DIRECTV HD we just hooked up.

With what Starfleet just ponied up for this big screen TV, settling for cable would be illogical.

Mr. Spock: [Clearing throat.]

Captain Kirk: What, I can't use that line?

The original version ended with the announcer saying, "For picture quality that beats cable, you've got to get DIRECTV."

DIRECTV agreed to stop running the Shatner commercial in November 2006. In January 2007, DIRECTV released a revised version of the commercial ("Revised Shatner Commercial") with the revamped tag line, "For an HD picture that can't be beat, get DIRECTV."

3. Internet Advertisements

DIRECTV also waged its campaign in cyberspace, placing banner advertisements on various websites to promote the message that when it comes to picture quality, "source matters." The banner ads have the same basic structure. They open by showing an image that is so highly pixelated that it is impossible to discern what is being depicted. On top of this indistinct image is superimposed the slogan, "SOURCE MATTERS." After about a second, a vertical line splits the screen into two parts, one labeled "OTHER TV" and the other "DIRECTV." On the OTHER TV side of the line, the picture is extremely pixelated and distorted, like the opening image. By contrast, the picture on the DIRECTV side is exceptionally sharp and clear. The DIRECTV screen reveals that what we have been looking at all along is an image of New York Giants quarterback Eli Manning; in another ad, it is a picture of two women snorkeling in tropical waters. The advertisements then invite browsers to "FIND OUT WHY DIRECTV'S picture beats cable" and to "LEARN MORE" about a special offer. In the original design, users who clicked on the "LEARN MORE" icon were automatically directed to the HDTV section of DIRECTV's website.

In addition to the banner advertisements, DIRECTV created a demonstrative advertisement that it featured on its own website. Like the banner ads, the website demonstrative uses the split-screen technique to compare the picture quality of "DIRECTV" to that of "OTHER TV," which the ad later identifies as representing "basic cable," i.e., analog cable. The DIRECTV side of the screen depicts, in high resolution, an image of football player Kevin Dyson making a touchdown at the Super Bowl. The portion of the image on the OTHER TV side is noticeably pixelated and blurry. This visual display is accompanied by the following text: "If you're hooking up your high-definition TV to basic cable, you're not getting the best picture on every channel. For unparalleled clarity, you need DIRECTV HD. You'll enjoy 100% digital...

To continue reading

Request your trial
298 cases
  • DOES 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 v. Enfield Pub. Sch.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • May 31, 2010
    ......At this time, the ACLU also sent similar letters to other ... the requested relief is denied.” Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 497 F.3d 144, ......
  • Kid Car NY, LLC v. Kidmoto Techs. LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 9, 2021
    ...... the Kid Car App starting "at or about the time [Kidmoto] launched its service." (Compl. ¶ 32). ...2014) (quoting Conopco, Inc. v. Roll Int'l , 231 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir. 2000) ...Time Warner, Inc. , 282 F.3d 147, 155 (2d Cir. 2002). To ... of contrast"); see also Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc. , 497 F.3d 144, 153 (2d ......
  • Wellnx Life Sciences v. Iovate Health Sciences
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 26, 2007
    ... . 516 F.Supp.2d 270 . WELLNX LIFE SCIENCES INC., f/k/a Nxcare Inc., Plaintiff, . v. . IOVATE ... likely to mislead or confuse consumers." Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 497 F.3d ......
  • Civil Liberties Union v. City Transit Authority, 09 Civ. 3595(RJS).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • December 23, 2009
    ...... amount of the fine, and the manner, date, time, and place at which the respondent may attend a ... if the requested relief is denied." Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 497 F.3d 144, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Second Circuit Clarifies The Use Of Legal Presumptions Of Consumer Confusion And Injury In Certain Lanham Act Cases
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • September 1, 2014
    ...the advertising accompanying those products was the vehicle employed to perpetrate the fraud."). 6 See Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DirecTV, 497 F.3d 144, 153 (2d Cir. 2007) ("When an advertisement is shown to be literally or facially false, consumer deception is presumed, and 'the court may ......
  • N. Am. Olive Oil Ass’n v. Kangadis Food, Inc.
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 10, 2013
    ...language susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation can never be literally false. Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 497 F.3d 144, 158 (2d Cir. 2007). The court found that a reasonable consumer could understand the phrase "100% Pure Olive Oil" to refer to a product that c......
8 books & journal articles
  • False Influencing
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 109-1, October 2020
    • October 1, 2020
    ...Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson–Merck Consumer Pharm. Co., 290 F.3d 578, 587 (3d Cir. 2002). 187. Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 497 F.3d 144, 158 (2d Cir. 2007). 188. Schering–Plough Healthcare Prods. Inc., v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 586 F.3d 500, 513 (7th Cir. 2009). 189. McNeil–P.C.C.......
  • Commercial Disparagement and Defamation
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook Business tort law
    • January 1, 2014
    ...(3d Cir. 1941); Allcare, Inc. v. Bork, 531 N.E.2d 1033, 1037-39 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988). 70. See Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 497 F.3d 144, 159-60 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing Lipton v. Nature Co., 71 F.3d 464, 474 (2d Cir. 1995)); Maharishi Hardy Blechman Ltd. v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 2......
  • Federal Law of Unfair Competition
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook Business tort law
    • January 1, 2014
    ...(alteration in original); see Tiffany Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 600 F.3d 93, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Time Warner Cable v. DirecTV, Inc., 497 F.3d 144, 153 (2d Cir. 2007)); United States Healthcare, 898 F.2d at 922. 99. Time Warner Cable, 497 F.3d at 158 (citing Avis Rent A Car Sys. v. Hertz Co......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Advertising Claim Substantiation Handbook
    • January 1, 2017
    ...134 F.T.C. 511 (2002) ...................................................................... 103 Time Warner Cable v. DirecTV, Inc., 497 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2007) ................................. 14, 15, 16, 17, 24, 47 Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 125 F.T.C. 39 (1998) ..............................
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT