Restaurant Owes Damages for Fight Broadcast

A Richmond U.S. District Court enters a default judgment and awards plaintiff, a sports event production company, damages of $22,321.68 for defendant restaurant’s willful interception and unauthorized broadcast transmission of a boxing match on Sept. 17, 2011, for commercial purposes, in violation of 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605.

Pursuant to a licensing agreement, plaintiff J&J Sports Productions Inc. obtained the exclusive rights to exhibit the closed-circuit telecast of “Star Power: Floyd Mayweather Jr. v. Victor Ortiz, Championship Fight Program,” and all related programming at locations throughout Virginia, such as theaters, arenas, bars, restaurants and the like. Plaintiff charged a fee of $2,200 for commercial establishments with seating capacity of 100 or less, and charged higher fees for establishments with greater seating capacity. Plaintiff alleges defendants could have, but did not, contract with plaintiff for the rights to broadcast the event.

Plaintiff has met the requirements of Rule 55(b) and default judgment may properly be entered against defendant. Plaintiff has indicated it elects to proceed under 47 U.S.C. § 605 for the purpose of calculating damages.

Courts have used different methods of calculating statutory damages for the violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605. Typically, courts have used per person rates and flat fees. However, plaintiff has not alleged the number of patrons present in Vision at the time the Event was broadcast, nor the maximum occupancy of defendant’s establishment. As such, the court cannot apply a per person rate to calculate statutory damages.

Courts’ application of the flat fee method also has varied. Here, defendant charged a cover fee and engaged in commercial advertising of its unauthorized broadcast of the Event. The court finds that $5,000 is an appropriate award of statutory damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 605(e)(3)(C)(i)(II).

Section 605 also provides for courts to allow additional statutory damages for willful violations commercially benefiting the offender. Plaintiff alleges defendant’s actions were necessarily willful because a device or access code was necessary in order to play an unscrambled version of the Event. Courts in this district and elsewhere have agreed with this analysis.

Plaintiff does not allege that defendant is a repeat offender, and the court has uncovered no other action against defendant in this district. Plaintiff provided to the court documentation that defendant’s broadcast of the Event was advertised on Twitter prior to Sept. 17, 2011. Also, plaintiff properly alleged that defendant applied a $10 cover charge to male patrons during display of the Event. In light of these aggravating factors, the court finds that $15,000 is an appropriate enhanced statutory damages award pursuant to the statute.

Plaintiff’s attorney worked at the rate of $200 per hour and spent 9.2 hours working on the case. The court finds the hourly rate and number of hours to be reasonable. The total comes to $1,840 in attorney’s fees, added to plaintiff’s costs, for an award of $2,231.68.

J&J Sports Productions Inc. v. After Six Productions Inc. (Spencer) No. 3:13cv591, Feb. 19, 2014; USDC at Richmond, Va. VLW 014-3-097, 9 pp.