Update March 2010: A number of similar cases were consolidated in the Southern District of New York. Judge P. Kevin Castel ruled that the tying allegations were insufficient because cable TV purchasers had an alternative to the cable box for most purposes and thus the element of coercion was not met. The plaintiffs were given an oppotunity to amend to limit their claims to certain functions, like ordering Pay-per-view programing for which no alternative to the cable box existed.
An individual has alleged that Time Warner Cable’s policies with respect to cable boxes constitute unlawful tying and monopolization. The putative class action, Meeds v. Time Warner, has been filed in the District of Kansas.