A California man filed suit in state court Tuesday against internet service provider Comcast, arguing that the company's secret use of technology to limit peer-to-peer applications such as BitTorrent violates federal computer fraud laws, their user contracts and anti-fraudulent advertising statutes.

Plaintiff Jon Hart, represented by the Lexington Law Group, argues that Comcast's promises of providing internet connections that let users "Download at Crazy Fast Speeds" are false and misleading since Comcast limits downloads by transmitting "unauthorized hidden messages to the computers of customers" who use peer-to-peer file sharing software. Hart wants the court to force Comcast to stop interfering with the traffic.

He also wants the court to certify the suit as a class action and force Comcast to pay damages to himself and all other Comcast internet subscribers in California

The suit (.pdf), which also claims the BitTorrent blocking is an unfair business practice, was filed in California Superior Court in Alameda County.

Defendants have disseminated and continues to disseminate advertising, that they know or should reasonably know is false and misleading. This conduct includes, but is not limited to, promoting and advertising the fast speeds that apply to the Service without limitation, when, in fact, Defendants severely limit the speed of the Service for certain applications. It further includes Defendant's misrepresentations that their customers will enjoy "unfettered access" to all internet applications, when, in fact, Defendants not only fetter certain applications, but completely block them. Defendants know or reasonably should know that this advertising is false and misleading.

In the suit, Hart says he upgraded to Comcast's Performance Plus service in September specifically to use the "blocked applications," and that nothing in the 22-page terms of agreement with Comcast indicated that the company throttles traffic.

Though Comcast has yet to see the suit, Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas pointed THREAT LEVEL to the company's FAQs about its traffic shaping and issued the following statement

Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any websites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services. Our customers use the Internet for downloading and uploading files, watching movies and videos, streaming music, sharing digital photos, accessing numerous peer-to-peer sites, VOIP applications like Vonage, and thousands of other applications online. We have a responsibility to provide all of our customers with a good Internet experience and we use the latest technologies to manage our network so that they can continue to enjoy these applications.

Comcast refuses to plainly explain what it does to control BitTorrent traffic, but independent analyses have shown that Comcast is severely throttling internet traffic that is using the popular file sharing protocol BitTorrent by sending fake "I'm finished" messages to users' BitTorrent programs. Those fake packets are also alleged to affect users of the mainstream business application Lotus Notes. The lawsuit charges those fake packets violate the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The BitTorrent protocol is used for sharing large files – from pirated films to open-source OSs – by having downloaders also serve as uploaders, even when they have only downloaded a portion of the file. Though almost nothing is publicly known about aggregate internet traffic, BitTorrent protocol traffic is often estimated to constitute 35% to 40% of internet traffic.

ISP discrimination against certain kinds of traffic also violates established Federal Communications Commission policies on Net Neutrality, the suit argues.

Comcast has yet to be served with the suit, according to Lexington Law Group attorney Mark Todzo. The firm is waiting to get an official copy of the suit back from the court and expects to serve Comcast later this week.

Comcast will then have 30 days to answer the complaint or seek dismissal of the suit.

The case is Hart v. Comcast.

UPDATE: Comcast was working on an answer to THREAT LEVEL's questions when the story was posted, and their response was added as soon as the company got back to us.

See Also: