A Dallas restaurant and its owners “willfully engaged” in wrongful acts when they intercepted the June 2021 pay-per-view broadcast of the Israel Adesanya vs. Marvin Vettori Ultimate Fighting Championship match for free while legitimate establishments paid substantially more for the proper commercial sublicense to show the broadcast to their patrons, alleged Joe Hand Promotions’ Communications Act complaint Tuesday (docket 3:24-cv-01358) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. Jennifer and Mary Carbajal, who own El Botanero Restaurant & Bar, knew or should have known that the interception and exhibition of the broadcast wasn’t “properly authorized,” said the complaint. The broadcast wasn’t for private viewing, nor was it for residential, noncommercial purposes, it said. The restaurant sold food and drinks during the broadcast, and the public display of the program was to entice patrons to the establishment to spend money while viewing it, it said. The Carbajals intentionally pirated the program for "their own economic gain,” it said. The complaint seeks maximum damages of $100,000 for the willful violation of Section 605 of the Communications Act, or alternatively the maximum of $50,000 for the willful violation of Section 553.

A restaurant owner in Texas City, Texas, willfully engaged in wrongful acts when he intercepted the June 2021 closed-circuit broadcast of the Gervonta Davis vs. Mario Barrios boxing match for free while legitimate establishments paid substantially more for the proper commercial sublicense to show the broadcast to their patrons, alleged Joe Hand Promotions’ Communications Act complaint Sunday (docket 3:24-cv-00141) in U.S. District Court for Southern Texas in Galveston. Phillip Palmer knew or should have known that the interception and exhibition of the June 26, 2021, broadcast at his Big Phil’s Soul & Creole Cafe wasn’t “properly authorized,” said the complaint. The broadcast wasn’t for private viewing, nor was it for residential, noncommercial purposes, it said. Palmer’s establishment sold food and drinks during the broadcast, and the public display of the program was to entice patrons to the establishment to spend money while viewing it, it said. Palmer intentionally pirated the program “for the purpose of his own economic gain,” it said. The complaint seeks maximum damages of $100,000 for the willful violation of Section 605 of the Communications Act, or alternatively the maximum of $50,000 for the willful violation of Section 553.

La Cima Grill Sports Bar in San Jose and its owner, Karen Julieth Castellanos Fierro, pirated the closed-circuit broadcast of the Oct. 17 Ecuador vs. Colombia soccer match without authorization from rights holder Integrated Sports Media, alleged Integrated’s Communications Act complaint Wednesday (docket 5:24-cv-02756) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. Fierro unlawfully intercepted and displayed the program to her paying customers, resulting in increased profits for her tavern, which sold food and beverages to its patrons as they watched the unlawful feed, said the complaint. Integrated entered into sublicensing agreements with various commercial entities throughout North America, granting the rights to publicly exhibit the soccer match within their establishments, it said. As a commercial distributor and licensor of sporting events, Integrated spent “substantial” sums marketing, advertising, promoting, administering and transmitting the soccer match to its commercial customers, it said. The match originated via satellite uplink and was subsequently retransmitted to cable systems and satellite companies via satellite signal to Integrated’s lawful sublicensees, said the complaint. The complaint alleges Fierro and her establishment committed willful violations of the Communications Act and the Cable and Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, and did so “for purposes of direct and/or indirect commercial advantage and/or private financial gain,” it said. The four-count complaint seeks $170,000 in statutory damages on the first and second counts, compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages on the third count and restitution from Fierro and her establishment on the fourth count for their “ill-gotten gains,” it said.

Shaggy’s Tavern and Hookah Bar intentionally pirated the May 7, 2022, pay-per-view broadcast of the Canelo Alvarez vs. Dmitry Bivol boxing match, alleged program distributor Joe Hand Promotions in a Communications Act complaint Monday (docket 3:24-cv-00566) in U.S. District Court for Middle Tennessee in Nashville. Joe Hand entered into license agreements with various commercial establishments in Tennessee that, in exchange for a fee, allowed them to exhibit the program to their patrons, said the complaint. The program was legally available to Shaggy’s, a Lebanon, Tennessee, eatery, and its owner Ana Franco, for exhibition in the establishment only after paying a commercial sublicense fee, it said. But the defendants chose not to contract with Joe Hand, it said. They instead “took affirmative steps to circumvent the commercial sublicensing requirement” and unlawfully obtained the program via a satellite or cable signal, it said.

Flores Property Holdings and owner Jaime Flores showed the Floyd Mayweather vs. Logan Paul boxing match on June 6, 2021, without authorization from Joe Hand Productions, which held the exclusive commercial license for exhibiting the closed-circuit broadcast, alleged a Communications Act complaint (docket 2:24-cv-00099) Thursday in U.S. District Court for Southern Texas in Corpus Christi. The defendants illegally intercepted the broadcast to avoid paying the proper commercial sublicense fee to Joe Hand, the complaint said. The broadcast originated via satellite uplink and was retransmitted interstate to cable systems and satellite television companies via satellite signal, said the complaint. The establishment made sales during the broadcast, including an entry fee, table and drink set-up fees, drinks and food; public display of the match "was to entice patrons to” the venue to spend money while watching it, the complaint alleged. The plaintiff seeks statutory damages of up to the maximum of $100,000 for each willful violation, plus attorneys’ fees and costs.

Long Wongs, a wings and burger restaurant in Chandler, Arizona, exhibited eight Ultimate Fighting Championship and boxing pay-per-view broadcasts for its customers between January 2019 and March 2023 without a sublicense or authorization to do so, alleged rights holder Joe Hand Promotions in a Communications Act complaint Thursday (docket 2:24-cv-00538) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. The suit names the establishment and its owners, Victor Martinez and Edgar Martinez, as defendants. The broadcasts originated via satellite uplink and were retransmitted interstate to cable systems and satellite television companies via satellite signal, said the complaint. The interstate satellite transmissions were electronically scrambled and weren’t “available to or intended for the free use of the general public,” it said. The broadcasts were legally available to the defendants for a commercial sublicense fee, determined by the capacity of the establishment, it said. But the defendants chose not to contract with Joe Hand and instead “took affirmative steps to circumvent the commercial sublicensing requirement" and unlawfully obtained each of the broadcasts, it said. The defendants “willfully engaged in wrongful acts” to intercept each of the broadcasts for free, while Joe Hand’s “legitimate customers paid substantially more for the proper commercial sublicenses,” it said. The complaint seeks statutory damages of up to the maximum of $110,000 for each willful violation.

Joe Hand Promotions held the exclusive commercial licensing rights to the pay-per-view broadcasts of two Ultimate Fighting Championship matches in January and February 2021. Its complaint Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-00308) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden alleges that Tavern & Table in Hainesport, New Jersey, and its owner, Giuseppe Cammarata, “willfully intercepted” those broadcasts through an unauthorized satellite transmission or unauthorized receipt over a cable system. They then “unlawfully transmitted, divulged and published” those broadcasts to patrons in the establishment, it said. The defendants pirated the licensed exhibitions of the programs and infringed on Joe Hand’s exclusive rights “while avoiding proper authorization and payment” to Joe Hand, alleged the complaint. Their actions “were committed willfully and with the purpose and intent to secure a commercial advantage and private financial gain,” it said. Joe Hand is entitled to judgment in its favor and statutory damages of up to $110,000 for each willful infraction, plus court costs and attorneys’ fees, said the complaint.

Program distributor Joe Hand Productions reached a settlement with the Kavasutra Kava Bar in Tempe, Arizona, and its owner, Michael Klein, of its claims that the defendants violated the Communications Act when they pirated three Ultimate Fighting Championship pay-per-view programs in summer 2022 (see 2307280039), said the plaintiff’s notice of settlement Monday (docket 2:23-cv-01494) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. A settlement agreement is being circulated between the parties, and an executed notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the entire action will be filed with the court within 60 days, said the notice. The parties ask the court to vacate all pending due dates, hearings, conferences and appearances, it said.

U.S. District Judge John Chun for Western Washington in Seattle dismissed in part and granted in part T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss a six-count SIM swap lawsuit filed against the carrier in February, said his order Friday (docket 2:23-cv-00271). T-Mobile moved to dismiss, saying that all but one of Eman Bayani’s claims were time-barred by a one-year time limitation in its terms and conditions (T&Cs) and that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under the Federal Communications Act (FCA). The T&Cs don’t form the basis of Bayani’s complaint and are inappropriate for incorporation, said Chun. Though Bayani doesn’t dispute that a contract bound him and T-Mobile when he possessed a T-Mobile phone number, the complaint doesn’t seek recourse based on contract violations but instead on T-Mobile’s alleged violations of state and federal statutes, said the order. The court denied T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss five claims on time-bar grounds. Private litigants can bring an action for damages when a carrier violates an FCC rule or regulation that lawfully implements 47 U.S.C. Section 201(b), said the order. Bayani contends T-Mobile violated regulation 47 C.F.R. when it failed to “properly authenticate a customer prior to disclosing [customer proprietary network information] based on customer-initiated telephone contact” and "therefore has a private cause of action," said the order. Bayani alleges plausible claims under the FCA, and he alleges plausible negligence claims, said Chun. Bayani alleged T-Mobile committed an affirmative act when it transferred Bayani’s SIM card “without instituting proper procedures to protect access to [Bayani’s] information” and "exposed his account information to a scammer,” and the court agreed. Bayani failed to allege a plausible Stored Communications Act (SCA) claim because he didn’t allege the contents divulged to SIM swap scammers were in electronic storage or that T-Mobile provides remote computing services, said the judge. Bayani adequately pleaded a cognizable loss under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act because the CFAA provides a civil remedy for anyone who “suffers a damage or loss by reason of a violation of" U.S.C. Code Cection 1030, Chun said. The judge dismissed with prejudice Bayani’s FCA claim based on T-Mobile’s failure to protect the confidentiality of his information; he also dismissed his SCA claims without prejudice. Bayani has until Nov. 16 to seek leave to amend the complaint.

DOJ urged a district court to reject constitutional challenges to Section 1510(c)(1) of the 2018 Wireless Telecommunications Tax and Fee Collection Fairness Act and Sections 254(f) and 254(i) of the Communications Act of 1934. The Kentucky 911 Service Board claimed those sections violate the 10th Amendment, in litigation with CTIA at U.S. District Court for Eastern Kentucky (see 2309250040 and 2309210018). "Congress is not commandeering the states; rather, it is merely restricting state and local regulation in the area of telecommunications, which falls comfortably within Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause,” wrote DOJ, intervening Monday in case 3:2020-cv-00043. None of the disputed sections requires states to administer a federal program, it said. But the court needn’t reach the merits because Kentucky lacks standing, DOJ said. "Defendants did not meet their burden of identifying either a 'contemporary' or 'substantial' 'likelihood of future enforcement' of Sections 254(f) and 254(i),” said the department. "Defendants failed to meet their burden of showing that there is a 'case' or 'controversy' regarding either Section as required for Article III standing, which renders Defendants’ challenges to Sections 254(f) and 254(i) purely academic.”