## Facts

- DIRECTV, Inc. provided encrypted satellite television programming.
- DIRECTV alleged multiple individuals purchased and used “pirate access devices” to receive DIRECTV’s encrypted transmissions without authorization or payment.
- DIRECTV alleged this conduct constituted intentional interception of “electronic communications” under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), including 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a).
- DIRECTV sought civil remedies under 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a), which authorizes suit by a person whose electronic communication is intercepted in violation of the ECPA.
- The cases reached the court following defaults; the relevant factual allegations in the complaints were treated as true for purposes of the appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a) authorizes a private civil action for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) based on unauthorized interception of encrypted satellite television broadcasts.
2. Whether the availability of a civil remedy under 47 U.S.C. § 605 displaces or bars an ECPA civil action for the same alleged conduct.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the dismissal of DIRECTV’s ECPA claims.
- The court held § 2520(a) creates a private right of action for violations of § 2511(1)(a) where defendants intentionally intercept encrypted satellite broadcasts without authorization.
- The court rejected the view that § 605 provides an exclusive remedy that forecloses an ECPA civil action.
- The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its ruling reinstating the § 2520(a) claims.

## Legal Principles

- Section 2520(a) provides a civil cause of action to any “person” whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted “in violation of this chapter,” which encompasses violations of § 2511(1)(a).
- Unauthorized interception of encrypted satellite television transmissions, as alleged, can constitute interception of “electronic communications” actionable under § 2520(a).
- Statutory overlap between the ECPA and 47 U.S.C. § 605 does not, without clear congressional direction, eliminate the ECPA civil remedy.
- For § 2520(a), “person” includes corporate entities capable of owning and transmitting electronic communications.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that the ECPA authorizes a private civil action under § 2520(a) for intentional interception prohibited by § 2511(1)(a), including unauthorized interception of encrypted satellite broadcasts, and that the existence of a parallel remedy under 47 U.S.C. § 605 does not bar the ECPA claim.


DIRECTV, Inc. v. Pepe, 431 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2005)