Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Another Sports Bar/Restaurant Owner Must Pay the Price for Illegal Interception of Pay-per-View Programming
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: May 14, 2013
Key Contacts
Back
About a year ago, we wrote about a then-recent decision in the Federal District Court for New Jersey in which the owner of a sports bar and restaurant was found guilty of violating the federal Communications Act, which prohibits the unauthorized reception of radio or television transmissions as well as satellite transmissions. Both sets of statutes carry the possibility of statutory damages, including “enhanced” (or punitive) damages, as well as court costs and attorney’s fees. The bar and restaurant had illegally intercepted a pay-per-view boxing match and displayed it throughout the establishment.
Now, another sports bar/restaurant owner will pay the price. In May of 2010, Robin Waldron and Charlynn Waldron arranged for the illegal interception of an Ultimate Fighting Championship television broadcast for dissemination in their sports bar/restaurant in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey. With the defendants having failed to appear in a lawsuit brought by the owner of the rights to the broadcast, the Court determined, on the basis of the allegations set forth in the complaint, that summary judgment was appropriate, finding the defendants guilty of the unauthorized interception of the programming. Indeed, despite the fact that the plaintiff was unable to determine whether the defendants had intercepted a cable system signal or a satellite broadcast signal (because such information was within the domain of the defendants), the Court concluded that a violation of both statutes (47 U.S.C. §553, applicable to communications over a wired cable system, and 47 U.S.C. §605, applicable to communications via satellite), could be sustained and that sufficient evidence existed to establish a violation in either case.
On that basis, the Court ordered the defendants to pay statutory and enhanced damages (owing to the willful nature of the defendants’ actions), as well as Court costs and attorney’s fees, totaling almost $8,000.00.
An expensive evening of television.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Dennis Linken, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
- Practices: Corporate Transactions & Business
- Locations: Red Bank, NJ, New York City, Little Falls, NJ
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Why Compliance Monitoring Matters for NY and NJ Businesses
Compliance programs are no longer judged by how they look on paper, but by how they function in the real world. Compliance monitoring is the ongoing process of reviewing, testing, and evaluating whether policies, procedures, and controls are being followed—and whether they are actually working. What Is Compliance Monitoring? In today’s heightened regulatory environment, compliance […]
Author: Dan Brecher
When Are New Jersey Business Owners Personally Liable for Corporate Debt?
New Jersey personal guaranty liability is a critical issue for business owners who regularly sign contracts on behalf of their companies. A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision provides valuable guidance on when a business owner can be held personally responsible for a company’s debt. Under the Court’s decision in Extech Building Materials, Inc. v. […]
Author: Charles H. Friedrich
Commercial Real Estate Trends to Watch in 2026
Commercial real estate trends in 2026 are being shaped by shifting economic conditions, technological innovation, and evolving tenant demands. As the market adjusts to changing interest rates, capital flows, and workplace models, investors, owners, tenants, and developers must understand how these trends are influencing opportunities and risk in the year ahead. Overall Outlook for Commercial […]
Author: Michael J. Willner
One Big Beautiful Bill: New Tip Income Tax Rules Employers & Workers Need to Know
Part 2 – Tips Excluded from Income Certain employees and independent contractors may be eligible to deduct tips from their income for tax years 2025 through 2028 under provisions included in the One Big Beautiful Bill. The deduction is capped at $25,000 per year and begins to phase out at $150,000 of modified adjusted gross […]
Author: Scott H. Novak
One Big Beautiful Bill: New Overtime Tax Rules Employers and Employees Need to Know
Part 1 – Overtime Pay and Income Tax Treatment Overview This Firm Insights post summarizes one provision of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” related to the tax treatment of overtime compensation and related employer wage reporting obligations. Overtime Pay and Employee Tax Treatment The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) generally requires that overtime be paid […]
Author: Scott H. Novak
New York’s FAIR Business Practices Act: What the New Consumer Protection Measure Means for Your Business
In 2025, New York enacted one of the most consequential updates to its consumer protection framework in decades. The Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable Business Practices Act (FAIR Act) significantly expands the scope and strength of New York’s long-standing consumer protection statute, General Business Law § 349, and alters the compliance landscape for New York […]
Author: Dan Brecher
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.