PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1142

BENJAMIN MEADOWS,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CEBRIDGE ACQUISITION, LLC; CEQUEL III COMMUNICATIONS I, LLC; CEQUEL III COMMUNICATIONS II, LLC; ALTICE USA, INC.,

Defendants – Appellants.

No. 23-1145

RICHARD CHATY,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CEBRIDGE ACQUISITION, LLC; CEQUEL III COMMUNICATIONS I, LLC; CEQUEL III COMMUNICATIONS II, LLC; ALTICE USA, INC.,

Defendants – Appellants.

No. 23-1146

ROXIE GOOCH, Plaintiff – Appellee, USCA4 Appeal: 23-1145 Doc: 63 Filed: 03/27/2025 Pg: 2 of 29

v.

CEBRIDGE ACQUISITION, LLC; CEQUEL III COMMUNICATIONS I, LLC; CEQUEL III COMMUNICATIONS II, LLC; ALTICE USA, INC.,

Defendants – Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00193; 2:22-cv-00188; 2:22- cv-00184)

Argued: November 1, 2024 Decided: March 27, 2025

Before WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and Mary Geiger LEWIS, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge Rushing wrote the opinion, in which Judge Lewis joined. Judge Wynn wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

ARGUED: Archis Ashok Parasharami, MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Jonathan Franklin Mitchell, MITCHELL LAW PLLC, Austin, Texas, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Daniel E. Jones, Carmen N. Longoria-Green, MAYER BROWN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Talcott J. Franklin, TFPC, Portland, Maine, for Appellees.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1145 Doc: 63 Filed: 03/27/2025 Pg: 3 of 29

RUSHING, Circuit Judge:

These consolidated appeals arise from the denial of motions to compel arbitration

in three almost identical lawsuits. Three West Virginia residents who were unhappy with

their cable and internet service, provided under the brand name “Suddenlink,” sued

Cebridge Acquisition, LLC, Cequel III Communications I, LLC, Cequel III

Communications II, LLC, and Altice USA, Inc. (collectively, Suddenlink). Suddenlink

moved to compel arbitration in each case, relying on the arbitration agreement in its 2021

Residential Services Agreement. The district court denied Suddenlink’s motions,

concluding that a 2017 arbitration agreement controlled, was unconscionable, and could

not be enforced. That was error. The 2021 arbitration agreement governs, and it is valid

and enforceable. We therefore reverse and remand with instructions to compel arbitration

of all three disputes.

I.

A.

Suddenlink provides broadband internet, television, and telephone services to

residential customers in West Virginia, among other States. In providing these services,

Suddenlink requires each customer to agree to its Residential Services Agreement (RSA),

which details the terms and conditions of the parties’ commercial relationship. Suddenlink

generally has its service technicians present new customers with an el

Click Here to Read the rest of this document