In a Sirius XM Class Action Lawsuit, plaintiff contends that his long-time Sirius XM subscriber was deprived of a life-long music subscription, as he could no longer enjoy music through other stations provided by defendant. According to the Sirius XM Class Action Lawsuit, defendant has never allowed consumers to transfer their life membership to another vehicle or receiver. Instead, defendant has taken the position that even the life mentioned in the contract is not the life of the buying consumer, but merely the life of the subscriber. In other words, defendant, through its advertising and marketing efforts, has insisted that subscribers give up their life-time contracts with Sirius XM, and that they must also engage in ongoing purchases of other items or services through Sirius XM.
Sirius XM Class Action Lawsuit
The Sirius XM Class Action Lawsuit further claims that defendants have never engaged in any form of investigation or review to determine whether or not that they provide quality programming and that consumers are consistently dissatisfied with their purchases from Sirius XM. Further, plaintiffs contend that defendants have never offered any guarantee or reimbursement for subscribers that would result in the cancellation of their Sirius XM account. The class action lawsuit further charges that defendants have violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair and Accurate Transaction Act, and that they have failed to take reasonable steps to investigate and verify the claims of their former subscribers. Additionally, the lawsuit contends that defendants failed to timely deliver funds to their former subscribers in a reasonable fashion.
Plaintiffs additionally contend that defendants’ alleged violation of the FDCPA and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violates their right to equal protection under the law and they have been discriminated against and had their rights harmed because of their conduct of business. According to the Sirius XM Class Action Lawsuit, the defendants have a long track record of suppressing satellite radio services that are inferior to services provided by competitors. In addition, according to the Class Action Lawsuit, defendants have repeatedly deceived their subscribers by failing to make available services at reasonable rates, by charging high subscription fees, by failing to provide clear warranties concerning the service and by failing to respond to consumers in a reasonable manner. Moreover, it is claimed that defendants breach their obligations with respect to providing refunds and advances in a timely manner. In addition, plaintiffs further contend that defendants fail to take reasonable precautions to ensure that they do not violate the anti-competition laws of various states.
On October 8, 2021, in a motion to dismiss the complaint, defendants filed a Proposed Class Action Lawsuit and proposed a class of all persons who were subscribers of Sirius XM and who received “bulk and lifetime subscriptions.” Subscribers to such bulk and lifetime subscriptions would be barred from joining the proposed class. On November 3, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On December 4, the Court vacated the previously proposed class and designated three class representatives to represent the interests of the class.
Plaintiffs argue that defendants violated Article LV, which requires the distributor of a product to provide equal opportunities of ownership to buyers of the same product or service. They further claim that defendants’ refusal to make available channel solutions on the basis of a mandatory lifetime subscription and the failure to make reasonable accommodations for those who subscribe to channel solutions constitute direct and comparative discrimination within the meaning of the law. Plaintiffs further claim that defendants have violated FDCPA by failing to make available channel alternatives that would result in a higher level of quality and programming in a reasonably priced manner consistent with the quality that was enjoyed prior to the alleged violations. As a result, they seek a judgment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The defendant’s answer to the complaint states that plaintiffs’ claims are without merit and that they are not entitled to recovery. Pursuant to the defendant’s answer, defendants deny that they discriminate against subscribers based on their current or potential lifetime subscriptions; deny that they unreasonably limit subscriber choice; and state that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Anti-Cyber Piracy Act, enacted by Congress. The defendants further assert that they will make reasonable accommodations for those who subscribe to Sirius XM’s channel selection or other services such as Internet access.