Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 11: Commitments and Contingencies Contingencies Antitrust Cases We are defendants in two purported class actions originally filed in December 2003 in the United States District Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The potential class in the Massachusetts case, which has been transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is our customer base in the “Boston Cluster” area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania case is our customer base in the “Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters,” as those terms are defined in the complaints. In each case, the plaintiffs allege that certain customer exchange transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek damages under antitrust statutes, including treble damages. Classes of Chicago Cluster and Philadelphia Cluster customers were certified in October 2007 and January 2010, respectively. We appealed the class certification in the Philadelphia Cluster case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the class certification in August 2011. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted our petition to review the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling and in March 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the class had been improperly certified and reversed the judgment of the Third Circuit. The matter has been returned to the District Court for action consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. In August 2013, the plaintiffs in the Philadelphia Cluster case moved to certify a new, smaller class, which we opposed in January 2014. The parties have been discussing possible resolution of the Philadelphia Cluster case. Accordingly, in February 2014, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to stay the case, which the District Court granted. In April 2014, the District Court granted our unopposed motion to de-certify the Chicago Cluster class and the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to amend the Pennsylvania case so as to dismiss claims relating to the Chicago Cluster. In April 2014, lead counsel for the Boston Cluster cases withdrew, and in June 2014, new counsel requested the Boston Cluster cases be transferred to the federal court in Boston, which we have opposed. In addition, we are the defendant in 22 purported class actions filed in federal district courts throughout the country. All of these actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings. In a consolidated complaint filed in November 2009 on behalf of all plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation, the plaintiffs allege that we improperly “tie” the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California, Illinois and Alabama. The plaintiffs also allege a claim for unjust enrichment and seek relief on behalf of a nationwide class of our premium cable customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable customers from California, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Washington. In January 2010, we moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the unfair/deceptive trade practices acts of Illinois and Alabama. In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging violations of additional state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts on behalf of new subclasses in Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico and West Virginia. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs omitted their unjust enrichment claim, as well as their state law claims on behalf of the Alabama, Illinois and Pennsylvania subclasses. In June 2011, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint alleging only violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, antitrust law in Washington and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California and Washington. The plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a nationwide class of our premium cable customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable customers from California and Washington. In July 2011, we moved to compel arbitration of most of the plaintiffs’ claims and to stay the remaining claims pending arbitration. The West Virginia Attorney General also filed a complaint in West Virginia state court in July 2009 alleging that we improperly “tie” the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of digital cable services in violation of the West Virginia Antitrust Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The Attorney General also alleges a claim for unjust enrichment/restitution. We removed the case to the United States District Court for West Virginia, and it was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and consolidated with the multidistrict litigation described above. In June 2013, a comprehensive settlement agreement for all 23 cases was submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval. Regardless of whether this settlement agreement is approved, we do not expect these cases to have a material effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position. We believe the claims in each of the pending actions described above in this item are without merit, except as otherwise set forth above, and intend to defend the actions vigorously. We cannot predict the outcome of any of the actions described above, including a range of possible loss, or how the final resolution of any such actions would impact our results of operations or cash flows for any one period or our financial position. In addition, as any action nears a trial, there is an increased possibility that the action may be settled by the parties. Nevertheless, the final disposition of any of the above actions is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, but could possibly be material to our consolidated results of operations or cash flows for any one period. Other We are a defendant in several unrelated lawsuits claiming infringement of various patents relating to various aspects of our businesses. In certain of these cases other industry participants are also defendants, and also in certain of these cases we expect that any potential liability would be in part or in whole the responsibility of our equipment and technology vendors under applicable contractual indemnification provisions. We are also subject to other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of our business. While the amount of ultimate liability with respect to such actions is not expected to materially affect our results of operations, cash flows or financial position, any litigation resulting from any such legal proceedings or claims could be time consuming, costly and injure our reputation.

Contingencies

Antitrust Cases

We are defendants in two purported class actions originally filed in December 2003 in the United States District Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The potential class in the Massachusetts case, which has been transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is our customer base in the “Boston Cluster” area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania case is our customer base in the “Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters,” as those terms are defined in the complaints. In each case, the plaintiffs allege that certain customer exchange transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek damages under antitrust statutes, including treble damages.

Classes of Chicago Cluster and Philadelphia Cluster customers were certified in October 2007 and January 2010, respectively. We appealed the class certification in the Philadelphia Cluster case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the class certification in August 2011. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted our petition to review the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling and in March 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the class had been improperly certified and reversed the judgment of the Third Circuit. The matter has been returned to the District Court for action consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. In August 2013, the plaintiffs in the Philadelphia Cluster case moved to certify a new, smaller class, which we opposed in January 2014. The parties have been discussing possible resolution of the Philadelphia Cluster case. Accordingly, in February 2014, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to stay the case, which the District Court granted. In April 2014, the District Court granted our unopposed motion to de-certify the Chicago Cluster class and the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to amend the Pennsylvania case so as to dismiss claims relating to the Chicago Cluster. In April 2014, lead counsel for the Boston Cluster cases withdrew, and in June 2014, new counsel requested the Boston Cluster cases be transferred to the federal court in Boston, which we have opposed.

In addition, we are the defendant in 22 purported class actions filed in federal district courts throughout the country. All of these actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings. In a consolidated complaint filed in November 2009 on behalf of all plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation, the plaintiffs allege that we improperly “tie” the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of premium cable services in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California, Illinois and Alabama. The plaintiffs also allege a claim for unjust enrichment and seek relief on behalf of a nationwide class of our premium cable customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable customers from California, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Washington. In January 2010, we moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment and violations of the unfair/deceptive trade practices acts of Illinois and Alabama. In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging violations of additional state antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts on behalf of new subclasses in Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico and West Virginia. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs omitted their unjust enrichment claim, as well as their state law claims on behalf of the Alabama, Illinois and Pennsylvania subclasses. In June 2011, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint alleging only violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, antitrust law in Washington and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California and Washington. The plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a nationwide class of our premium cable customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of premium cable customers from California and Washington. In July 2011, we moved to compel arbitration of most of the plaintiffs’ claims and to stay the remaining claims pending arbitration. The West Virginia Attorney General also filed a complaint in West Virginia state court in July 2009 alleging that we improperly “tie” the rental of set-top boxes to the provision of digital cable services in violation of the West Virginia Antitrust Act and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The Attorney General also alleges a claim for unjust enrichment/restitution. We removed the case to the United States District Court for West Virginia, and it was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and consolidated with the multidistrict litigation described above. In June 2013, a comprehensive settlement agreement for all 23 cases was submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval. Regardless of whether this settlement agreement is approved, we do not expect these cases to have a material effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

We believe the claims in each of the pending actions described above in this item are without merit, except as otherwise set forth above, and intend to defend the actions vigorously. We cannot predict the outcome of any of the actions described above, including a range of possible loss, or how the final resolution of any such actions would impact our results of operations or cash flows for any one period or our financial position. In addition, as any action nears a trial, there is an increased possibility that the action may be settled by the parties. Nevertheless, the final disposition of any of the above actions is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, but could possibly be material to our consolidated results of operations or cash flows for any one period.

Other

We are a defendant in several unrelated lawsuits claiming infringement of various patents relating to various aspects of our businesses. In certain of these cases other industry participants are also defendants, and also in certain of these cases we expect that any potential liability would be in part or in whole the responsibility of our equipment and technology vendors under applicable contractual indemnification provisions. We are also subject to other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of our business. While the amount of ultimate liability with respect to such actions is not expected to materially affect our results of operations, cash flows or financial position, any litigation resulting from any such legal proceedings or claims could be time consuming, costly and injure our reputation.