Court: Lawsuit Against Satellite Radio Company Can Proceed
Last updated Wednesday, April 18, 2007 8:56 PM CDT in News
By John Lyon
The Morning News
LITTLE ROCK -- An Arkansas man's lawsuit alleging XM Satellite Radio falsely advertises its music channels as 100 percent commercial-free can proceed in U.S. District Court, at least for now, a federal appeals panel ruled Wednesday.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis affirmed a district court judge's decision to deny a motion by Washington, D.C.-based XM Radio to dismiss or stay proceedings in the suit filed by Pulaski County resident Matthew Enderlin.
Enderlin filed the suit in January 2006 in federal court in Little Rock. The suit alleges XM Radio's claim that its music channels, which are available for a subscription fee, are free of commercials is "false, misleading and deceptive" because the channels' programming includes "promotional and advertisement segments."
Enderlin alleges the company's commercial-free promise violates the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and similar statutes in 41 other states and the District of Columbia. He is seeking punitive damages and a court order that XM Radio no longer advertise its music channels as commercial-free.
He also is seeking to have the suit certified as a class-action suit so all XM Radio customers can be considered plaintiffs.
XM Radio has said the suit is without merit and the company does not air commercials on its music channels.
The company filed a motion last year for dismissal or, alternatively, a stay of the proceedings pending arbitration. It argued the case should not proceed in court because the customer service agreement it entered into with Enderlin contains a clause requiring that he submit any claims to arbitration.
Enderlin challenged the validity of the clause requiring arbitration, calling it "unconscionable."
A U.S. District Court judge denied the company's motion, and the 8th Circuit on Wednesday affirmed that ruling.
The appellate court said that although the customer service agreement does contain an arbitration clause, it makes an exception for some claims -- including claims based on the arbitration clause.
Enderlin's challenge of the validity of the arbitration clause qualifies as an excepted claim, and therefore the district court was correct in ruling that "it was for the court to determine the threshold issue of arbitrability," Judge Morris Arnold wrote in the appellate court's decision.
Judges William Riley and Pasco Bowman concurred in the decision.
Reader Comments (13 comment(s))
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsibility of their authors. The Morning News does not review comments before their publication, nor do we guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by our comment policy. If you see a comment that violates our policy, please notify the web editor.
Sirius Subscriber wrote on Apr 19, 2007 7:58 AM:
Ex- xm customer wrote on Apr 19, 2007 8:16 AM:
Current Happy Sub wrote on Apr 19, 2007 10:38 AM:
Linda Proctor wrote on Apr 19, 2007 12:57 PM:
This is why I have Sirius... wrote on Apr 19, 2007 5:29 PM:
xm sirius sub wrote on Apr 20, 2007 10:09 AM:
Current subscriber wrote on Apr 20, 2007 10:13 AM:
Matt wrote on Apr 20, 2007 1:22 PM:
AndyG wrote on Apr 22, 2007 7:21 PM:
JonS wrote on Apr 23, 2007 11:25 AM:
Patrick wrote on Apr 24, 2007 2:20 AM:
Dave wrote on Apr 24, 2007 10:35 AM:
xm - XL COMEDY LISTENER wrote on Apr 25, 2007 2:12 PM:






