DirecTV Sues Dish Network for False Advertising
DirecTV sued Dish Network for false advertising, claiming that a recent ad campaign misrepresents what are comparable packages between the two companies, according to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. DirecTV is asking the court to force Dish to pay DirecTV all profits related to the advertising, financial damages sustained by DirecTV as a result of the advertising, exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees. The company said Dish’s advertising violates the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law and common law of unfair competition.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
At issue is a Dish ad campaign that asks “Why Pay More?,” comparing prices of what it calls the “same programming.” The TV ads say the programming from Dish costs $39.99, compared to $63.99 from DirecTV. The complaint alleges Dish’s advertising “falsely equates apples and oranges” because it compares DirecTV’s mid-range 140-channel package with Dish’s entry level package with fewer than 100 channels. DirecTV also said the Dish package lacks many popular channels.
Separate versions of the ad ran on 18 national networks and 20 local channels, costing Dish about $1 million in the first three days it was shown. The ad reached a “massive audience” of DirecTV subscribers, DirecTV said. The suit asks for an injunction preventing Dish from airing the ads.
Dish is “pleased to compare our programming and prices to those of DirecTV,” said Tom Cullen, Dish executive vice president of sales, marketing and programming, in response to the suit: “We stand by our claim that our programming … is the same as their programming, and more importantly, that our customers realize significant savings over comparable programming packages from DirecTV.” The company also referenced a current DirecTV legal battle with the state of Washington over sales practices (CD Dec 15 p10), calling it “ironic” that DirecTV, which was “cited as ’standing out for providing some of the most deceptive advertising of any company,’ is now taking issue with Dish Network’s legitimate comparisons.”
By filing a federal claim, DirecTV could see a quicker process and preliminary injunction, said Hugh Latimer, a partner at Wiley Rein who has worked in false advertising cases. But federal claims are a typically harder for the plaintiff because the burden of proof lies with them, he said. DirecTV may be satisfied in achieving an injunction that would stop the ads and could settle at that point, said Latimer.