Appeals court denies arbitration in class-action suit against Suddenlink/Optimum

The Arkansas Court of Appeals has denied arbitration in a class-action lawsuit that Arkansas cities filed against Suddenlink Communications. 

The lawsuit was filed by the City of Gurdon on behalf of 59 Arkansas cities, including Arkadelphia and Caddo Valley, which have franchise ordinances governing the cable television, telephone and internet services Suddenlink provides to city residents. 

On April 3, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Clark County Circuit Court’s ruling that the cities were not required to individually arbitrate their claims against Suddenlink. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the case could proceed as a class action. 

RELATED: Arkansas Supreme Court remands lawsuit against Suddenlink to Clark County

The ruling means that Suddenlink, which now does business as Optimum, will not be able to avoid the claims of the Arkansas cities where it provides services through franchise agreements. 

Gurdon and the other cities allege that Suddenlink failed to make proper payments to them for its franchise rights and that the company failed to meet the minimum customer standards imposed by law and by the respective franchise ordinances. 

Among other things, Gurdon and Arkadelphia’s respective franchise ordinances prohibit the cable television provider from increasing its rates for services unless it first provides public notice of any increase, conducts a public hearing and secures approval from the City Council. Gurdon and other cities allege that Suddenlink consistently failed to comply with those requirements. 

In 2020, Suddenlink closed most of its offices in Arkansas, but Arkadelphia’s ordinance requires the city’s franchise cable television provider to maintain a local office. 

In 2020, hundreds of Suddenlink customers lodged complaints about the company’s prices and services and several customers followed through with lawsuits. In 2023, the Arkansas Court of Appeals issued a series of decisions which prevented individual customers from seeking legal relief against Suddenlink in court because of an arbitration provision that appeared on a Suddenlink website. Those rulings required customers to individually submit any claims to a private arbitrator. 

“We are disappointed that Suddenlink was able to use a website arbitration clause to shield itself from lawsuits by individual customers, but we are pleased that Suddenlink was not able to prevent Arkansas cities from pursuing these claims on behalf of themselves and their citizens,” said Todd Turner, who was one of the attorneys who represents the cities. “We would encourage anyone who has complaints about Suddenlink or Optimum to continue to contact the Arkansas Attorney General’s office and their local city representatives.”