Private Rights of Action and the Wiretap Act: The âDirecTVâ Litigation (CRS Report for Congress)
| Release Date |
Aug. 18, 2004 |
| Report Number |
RS21912 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Todd B. Tatelman, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
Attempts by DirecTV to reduce the piracy of its satellite broadcast signal have garnered
significant
legal and congressional interest. Over the past several years DirecTV has been engaged in an
aggressive campaign to prevent the theft and piracy of its satellite television signal. One element
of this campaign has been to bring civil lawsuits against individuals who possess certain devices that
apparently can be used to intercept satellite transmissions. DirecTV has brought these lawsuits
primarily pursuant to the civil remedies section of the Electronic Communications Piracy Act
(Wiretap Act), arguing that the statute allows them to bring a civil suit for any violation of the
Wiretap Act. Numerous defendants to these suits have responded by arguing that DirecTV's use of
this civil remedy is inappropriate because the act does not provide the statutory authority to bring
a civil lawsuit for violations of other sections of the Wiretap Act. Rather, they contend that the civil
remedy is limited to the specific violations listed in the statute. This argument has been met with
inconsistent results among the federal district courts that have ruled on its merits. Recently, the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal court of appeals to address this specific
issue, holding that the plain language of the Wiretap Act does not provide DirecTV with a private
right of action for alleged violations of other sections of the Wiretap Act. (1)
This report will be
updated.
1. Â DirecTV, Inc. v. Treworgy , 373 F.3d 1124
(11th Cir. 2004).
