This story was written by Staci D. Kramer.
Maybe Redbox’s lawyers get a bonus when they hit a certain number of lawsuits but this is getting to be a bit much. Yes, like Chris Albrecht at NewTeeVee, we knew this was coming: Redbox couldn’t sue Universal and Fox over their new vending machine windows, then ignore Warner Bros. Home Entertainment, which just imposed its own. Still, at some point, all three cases—and any others Redbox comes up with—should be consolidated into a single case in U.S. District Court in Delaware that can move forward at something mimicking the speed of a locomotive (since anything faster would be asking too much).
Have to admit I really appreciate the Goliath-David setup in the filing (embedded below): “Warner is the largest distributor of filmed entertainment in the world. ... Redbox is the nation’s leading, low-cost alternative for consumers to rent DVDs for home entertainment.” Redbox is “innovative” and “consumer-friendly” while Warner Bros. wants to “strangle” that alternative “to prop up an artificially high pricing scheme.”
But, while I haven’t been able to do a line-by-line comparison, much of the suit appears to be similar to the claims dismissed by U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler Monday in the initial suit against Universal. They may have adjusted enough to try again but I can’t tell at this point. (Legal eagles, feel free to ping me on this: staci AT paidcontent.org). That would leave antitrust as the core issue.
By Staci D. Kramer