Tillage

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES TILLAGE, et al., Case No. 17-cv-06477-VC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., JUDGMENT Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 129

Tillage and Loomis are Comcast customers. Their claims under California statutes and common law arise from what they say is Comcast’s deceptive scheme of promising a flat-rate price for cable and internet services up front but failing to disclose certain fees—and the fact that those fees can increase over the course of the contract—until after the consumer has already committed to their chosen plan. For the reasons explained below, Comcast’s motion for summary judgment as to Tillage’s and Loomis’s statutory claims is denied. Its motion as to their claims for breach of contract is granted.

Statutory Claims Tillage and Loomis each brought claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. To prevail on each of these claims at trial, the plaintiffs will have to prove essentially the same three elements:…