Contact Us Today! (877) 276-5084

Attorney Steve® Blog

Triller claims "illegal viewing" is actionable

Posted by Steve Vondran | Jun 17, 2021

Attorney Steve® illegal Streaming Law - illegal "viewing" is actionable?

Triller defense lawyer

Click here to listen to our video on Triller Fight Club Lawsuits


Our firm has handled many cases involving allegations of illegal interception and broadcasting of PPV boxing and fight matches.  This includes defending against companies such as Joe Hand Promotions, G&G Closed Circuit, J&J Sports and now "Triller."  Triller is being VERY AGGRESSIVE and even if you paid a settlement to them through their payment system, this does not always mean that your case is settled.  We have seen Triller legal counsel getting very aggressive in seeking to enforce their alleged rights.  They are not afraid to pursue you even if you paid a settlement (claiming the settlement is invalid).

But what happens if you don't answer the complaint?  How much do these cases settlement for (this blog only discusses a Zuffa, LLC case cited by Plaintiff counsel as one of their holy grail cases.  They have gone so fair as to suggest that it is illegal even to "view" a broadcast that was not paid for.  Let's take a look at the Zuffa case which involved similar allegations. 

According to Wikipedia:

"Zuffa, LLC (/ˈzuːfə/) is an American sports promotion company specializing in mixed martial arts. It was founded in January 2001 in Las Vegas, Nevada, by Station Casinos executives Frank Fertitta III and Lorenzo Fertitta to be the parent entity of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) after they purchased it from the Semaphore Entertainment Group. The word "Zuffa" is an Italian word (pronounced [ˈtsuffa, ˈdz-]), meaning "fight". On July 11, 2016, Zuffa announced that it would be purchased by a group led by WME-IMG including Silver Lake Partners, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and MSD Capital for the price of $4.025 billion."

Zuffa, Llc V. Pryce 8:12-cv-1584 (2013)

This was a case of alleged violation of the United States Telecommunications Act.  Plaintiff asserted various illegal conduct, and Defendant failed to answer.  Thus, the allegations plead in the complaint are deemed admitted.

According to the Court's final ruling:

"The complaint sets forth well-pleaded facts supporting plaintiff's claim that defendant knowingly, willfully and unlawfully received, viewed and illegally accessed UFC broadcasts #130 and #131, the subject copyrighted broadcasts, on May 28, 2011, and June 11, 2011, without paying plaintiff the appropriate pay-per-view fees. Defendant's default constitutes an admission of these factual allegations. See Au Bon Pain Corp., 653 F.2d at 65........Plaintiff moves for default judgment against defendant pursuant to Rule 55(b) (2) of the Fed. R. Civ. P.. Plaintiff seeks statutory money damages for defendant's willful violation in obtaining the unauthorized viewing of a pay-per-view proprietary broadcast pursuant to Title 47 of the United States Code §§ 553 and 605 for copyright infringement and under the copyright laws of the United States.

NOTE:  We have talked about these two telecom laws in other blogs.  See 47 U.S.C. 553 and 47 U.S.C. 605.

The Court continued:

"Defendant has failed to answer plaintiff's complaint and plaintiff has obtained a Clerk's Entry of Default (Dkt. #7). Thus, the Court deems true all relevant and well-pleaded factual allegations in plaintiff's complaint. See H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 107 (2d Cir. 2006)."

Since Defendant did not answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, the Court entered the default.


As the court noted:

Plaintiff seeks damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs, for defendants' violation of 47 U.S.C. §§ 553(a)(1) and 605(a).

Section 553 prohibits persons from intercepting or receiving “any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so ...” 47 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1).

Section 605 proscribes the unauthorized interception and publication of any “radio communication.” See id. § 605(a).

Defendants' default is deemed an admission of the use of an unauthorized device to intercept coded and scrambled internet transmissions.

Defendant has thus admitted to violating both sections 553 and 605.   

What happens where there is a default as to both allegations (553 and 605)?

The court addressed this:

"Where a defendant admits to violating both sections, a plaintiff may elect to recover damages under section 605. See Int'l Cablevision, Inc. v. Sykes, 75 F.3d 123, 131 n. 5 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Noel v. Int'l Cablevision, 519 U.S. 929 (1996). Section 605 states that where plaintiff is unable to provide evidence of the extent of any violations, the plaintiff may elect to recover statutory damages, instead of actual damages. 47 U.S.C. § 605 (e) (3) (C) (i) (II).

The range of statutory damages for a violation of section 605(a) is $1,000 to $10,000.

A court has discretion to determine the number of violations and assess damages for each violation. See id. The statute does not clearly define “violation;” rather, a court decides which acts of a defendant constitute a violation."

A court has two options when assessing damages under section 605.

First, it can multiply the number of patrons present at the unauthorized broadcasting by a specific dollar amount, typically the customary charge for the pay-per-view event being shown. See, e.g., Time Warner Cable of New York City v. Taco Rapido Rest., 988 F.Supp. 107, 111 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) (awarding statutory damages of $50 per patron); Cablevision Systems Corp. v. 45 Midland Enterprises, 858 F.Supp. 42, 45 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (awarding statutory damages of $50 per patron).

Alternatively, where the exact number of patrons is unknown, the court can impose damages based on what it “considers just.” Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Scott E's Pub, Inc., 146 F.Supp.2d 955 (E.D.Wis.2001) (awarding $5,250 in statutory damages); Home Box Office v. Champs of New Haven, Inc., 837 F.Supp. 480, 484 (D.Conn.1993) (awarding $10,000.00 in statutory damages).

An additional amount of up to $100,000 in enhanced damages is available where the violation was willful and was committed for commercial advantage or financial gain. See id. § 605(e)(3)(C) (ii).

Plaintiff in this case seeks an award of statutory damages, including an enhanced damages award based on defendants' willfulness. In exercising discretion in awarding damages, courts should be mindful of the difficulty in detecting such violations and the widespread problem of piracy. See Cablevision Sys. New York City Corp. v. Faschitti, No. 94 Civ. 6830 (DC), 1996 WL 48689, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 1996).

A court should therefore grant damages in an amount which achieves the deterrent purposes of the statute. See Cablevision Sys. New York City Corp. v. Lokshin, 980 F.Supp. 107, 113 (E.D.N.Y.1997).

In this case, unlike those cited by plaintiff, there is no evidence that defendant is a commercial entity who accessed the subject copyrighted broadcasts for proprietary or financial gain. Indeed, plaintiff concedes that defendant viewed the subject broadcasts over the internet on his computer in his residence. The Court thus concludes that the appropriate award of statutory damages in this case is the minimum amount, that is, $1,000.00 for each violation or a total of $2,000.00.

Enhanced damages

As noted above, in certain circumstances (willful infringement) a Court can increase the damage award. As the Court held:

D. Enhanced Damages Plaintiff also seeks an increased award pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), which provides in relevant part:

In any case in which the court finds that the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain, the court in its discretion may increase the award of damages, ... by an amount of not more than $100,000 for each violation of subsection (a) of this section.

Willfulness is defined as “disregard for the governing statute and an indifference for its requirements,” Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 127 (1985), and is established by the fact that an event is broadcast without authorization. See Time Warner Cable of New York City v. Googies Luncheonette, Inc., 77 F.Supp.2d 485, 490 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (“Signals do not descramble spontaneously, nor do television sets connect themselves to cable distribution systems.”).

Courts use a variety of factors in determining whether a defendant's willful conduct justifies enhanced damages. These factors include:

(1) repeated violations over an extended period of time;

(2) substantial unlawful monetary gains;

(3) advertising the broadcast;


(4) charging an admission fee or charging premiums for food and drinks.

See Kingvision Pay–Per–View Ltd. v. El Rey Del Bistec y Caridad, Inc., No. 01–CV–6562, 2001 WL 1586667, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.12, 2001).

In this case, defendant never paid the required fees to receive or watch the copyrighted broadcasts and, accordingly, was not authorized to intercept, receive or transmit communication of these broadcasts. In order for him to have received the broadcast via the internet on his home computer, he must have engaged in some deliberate act.

It is undisputed that defendant used the website known as which offered technology that allowed defendant to avoid payment of the required license fee to view plaintiff's programs.

Therefore, defendant's conduct was willful. In addition, the court may draw an inference of willfulness from a defendant's failure to appear and defend an action in which the plaintiff demands increased statutory damages based on allegations of willful conduct. See Fallaci v. The New Gazette Literary Corp., 568 F.Supp. 1172, 1173 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).

NOTE:  This gives you more reason to answer their demand letters, see if you can negotiate a settlement before just throwing in the towel, taking a default and seeing what the judge plans to do with you.  When you admit all the allegations in the complaint (when you default), you have just made it a question of damages, and that can be substantial.  I would serious discuss your case with a internet and IP lawyer.

Court awarded enhanced damages

"In this case, the factors supporting enhanced damages are not especially compelling.

There is no evidence of previous violations.

The most readily identifiable loss sustained by the plaintiff are the licensing fees it would have received had defendant legitimately obtained rights to view the broadcasts which the Court presumes are minimal but undisclosed on this record.

As referenced above, there is no evidence that defendant obtained any financial gain from his illegal receipt of the copyrighted broadcasts since he viewed them on his home computer.

Nevertheless, although plaintiff does not present a strong case for enhanced damages, it is entitled to some enhanced damages because the complaint establishes the defendant's willfulness in intercepting the broadcasts.

Taking into account the relevant factors, as well as the fact that the statutory damages discussed previously are well above the presumed amount defendant would have paid to view the broadcasts legally, the Court finds that enhanced damages of two times the amount of statutory damages is appropriate. See Circuito Cerrado, Inc. v. Pizzeria y Pupuseria Santa Rosita, 2011 WL 923515, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (finding that three times the statutory damages would be an inappropriate calculation of enhanced damages given that the statutory damages were already much greater than license fee cost); J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Welch, 2010 WL 4683744, at * 5 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (awarding two times the statutory damage amount as enhanced damages where none of the enhanced damages factors was evident).

Therefore, enhanced damages are awarded in the amount of $4,000.00.

Attorneys Fees and Costs

A successful Plaintiff in a telecom act case and in a copyright infringement case may seek their costs and attorney fees as part of the final judgment.

As the Zuffa court noted:

"The Federal Communications Act provides that full costs, including attorneys fees, shall be awarded to aggrieved party who prevails in an action under 47 U.S.C.§ 605 (a). Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit of its counsel, Julie Cohen Lonstein, who avers that plaintiff is entitled to an award of costs and attorneys fees of $7,005.10 (seven thousand five dollars and ten cents).

Plaintiffs request reimbursement of attorney hours at $250 per hour and paralegal hours at $100 per hour.

With respect to hourly fees, the Second Circuit has recently held that courts are to award the presumptively reasonable fee, that is, the fee that would be paid by a reasonable, paying client in the relevant community. See Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182, 191-93 (2d Cir. 2008).

The Court notes that plaintiffs' counsel Ms. Lonstein, Esq. has extensive experience and expertise in this field of litigation. Due to the nature of the claims, a substantial amount of expertise, time, and labor is required to pursue the claims successfully, even though in some cases recoveries may be relatively small. Here, counsel has succeeded in obtaining judgment recovering statutory as well as enhanced damages. The Court is aware of attorneys' fee awards in similar cases in this community; it has been determined that the prevailing rate in this community in a similar case is $210 per hour for experienced attorneys and $80 per hour for paralegals. See Directv v. Cruz, 2006 WL 3386774 , *3 (N.D.N.Y. 2006).

In light of these factors and the Court's own knowledge of the rates prevailing in the legal community, the Court finds that the rate in Cruz is the reasonable fee in the case at bar.  Accordingly, the award of attorneys' fees and costs is $5229.00 (24.90 x $210) for Attorney Lonstein's services, plus $241.60 (3.02 x $80) for the work by paralegals, in addition to litigation costs of $478.10 for a total of $5,948.70 in attorneys' fees and costs. Adding statutory damages of $2,000.00 and enhanced damages of $4,000.00, plaintiff's total recovery of $11,948.70."

Default judgment entered

Plaintiffs' are granted default judgment in the amount of $11,948.70, representing $2,000.00 in statutory damages, plus $4,000.00 in enhanced damages, plus $5,948.70 in attorneys' fees and costs.

Contact an IP & Social Media Law Firm

If you received a letter alleging infringement or interception (or illegal viewing) of a broadcast fight or other sporting event, contact us for a free initial consultation by calling (877) 276-5084 or filling our our contact form.  Since 2004, our firm has fought to defend individuals and companies accused of illegal piracy actions.  We have substantial experience representing clients with regard to Plaintiff legal demands including:

We have vast experience in technology law and BitTorrent litigation.  We have handled many cases involving illegal broadcast allegations (usually brought against bars, restaurants and other establishment.  If you receive a legal demand, or a notice of subpoena, or lawsuit notification call us.  Also, if you are being offered a settlement from Triller, I would seek legal advice.  They are not always willing to release you EVEN IF YOU PAY THEM, claiming your were only released if you meet their settlement guidelines.  Trust me, have legal counsel look at this.

About the Author

Steve Vondran

Thank you for viewing our blogs, videos and podcasts. As noted, all information on this website is Attorney Advertising. Decisions to hire an attorney should never be based on advertising alone. Any past results discussed herein do not guarantee or predict any future results. All blogs are written by Steve Vondran, Esq. unless otherwise indicated. Our firm handles a wide variety of intellectual property and entertainment law cases from music and video law, Youtube disputes, DMCA litigation, copyright infringement cases involving software licensing disputes (ex. BSA, SIIA, Siemens, Autodesk, Vero, CNC, VB Conversion and others), torrent internet file-sharing (Strike 3 and Malibu Media), California right of publicity, TV Signal Piracy, and many other types of IP, piracy, technology, and social media disputes. Call us at (877) 276-5084. AZ Bar Lic. #025911 CA. Bar Lic. #232337

Contact us for an initial consultation!

For more information, or to discuss your case or our experience and qualifications please contact us at (877) 276-5084. Please note that our firm does not represent you unless and until a written retainer agreement is signed, and any applicable legal fees are paid. All initial conversations are general in nature. Free consultations are limited to time and availability of counsel and will depend on the type of case you are calling about (no free consultations for other lawyers). All users and potential clients are bound by our Terms of Use Policies. We look forward to working with you!
The Law Offices of Steven C. Vondran, P.C. BBB Business Review