In Herring Broadcasting Inc. d/b/a/ WealthTV v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al., family-owned network WealthTV accused Time Warner Cable Inc. and Comcast Corp. of violating the Communitactions Act by refusing to carry its channels in favor of MOJO, a WealthTV competitor that is affiliated with the two cable giants. FCC Chief Administrative Law Judge Richard Sippel has found that WealthTV failed to produce evidence backing its claims that 1) the cable companies had failed to negotiate with it in good faith and had given preferential treatment to MOJO; and 2) the companies unreasonably restrained its ability to fairly compete. In siding with the cable companies, Judge Sippel rejected WealthTV’s claim that MOJO’s programming was “strikingly similar” and that the networks targeted the same demographic. According to the opinion, the companies’ decision not to carry WealthTV was based not only on an evaluation of WealthTV’s programming but on a view that it lacked an established brand with a proven record of appeal to subscribers; that its owners were inexperienced; that the network lacked outside financing; and other factors, which are all “legitimate, non-discriminatory business purposes.”