"Defendants deceive consumers into purchasing the service in the mistaken belief that they will be able to utilize the service for use of the blocked applications, while actively limiting and/or blocking such applications. Defendents’ scheme was and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and/or substantially injurious to consumers," Hart wrote in the filing.
The plaintiff demands that Comcast pays restitution to restore all funds acquired by the means the court may find unlawful and pre- and post-judgment interest.
Last but not least, he seeks to turn his case into a class action, which would force Comcast to pay damages to all the company’s Internet subscribers in California.
The scandal started back in late October, when the telecom company was proven guilty as charged. At first the company tried to defend itself with standard lines form its contracts, such as “[Comcast may] refuse to upload, post, publish, transmit or store any information or materials, in whole or in part, that, in sole discretion, is undesirable or in violation of agreement.”
One week later, Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen tried another approach by denying everything:
"Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services, and no one has demonstrated otherwise. We engage in reasonable network management to provide all of our customers with a good Internet experience, and we do so consistently with FCC policy."
Apparently, this line didn’t work either.