## Facts

- Comcast provided digital cable service using Motorola converter boxes connected to subscribers’ televisions and telephone lines.
- The converter boxes stored coded information, including pay-per-view purchase data, system diagnostic data, and other set-top data.
- The boxes contained hexadecimal codes reflecting pay-per-view purchase dates and channel identifiers, plus codes reflecting total purchases/payments.
- Each box also had a “unit address,” a device identifier that allowed Comcast to match the box to account information kept in Comcast’s separate billing system (which contained the subscriber’s name and address).
- The converter box itself did not store a subscriber’s name or address.
- The box stored up to 64 pay-per-view entries, with new entries overwriting older ones once the limit was reached.
- Subscribers sued under the Cable Communications Policy Act, 47 U.S.C. § 551, alleging Comcast stored and retained “personally identifiable information” in the converter boxes without proper authorization and for longer than necessary.
- Plaintiffs also asserted state-law claims alleging they were charged for services not provided.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Comcast on the Cable Act claims and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice after declining supplemental jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether coded converter-box data (including unit addresses and pay-per-view purchase information) constitutes “personally identifiable information” under 47 U.S.C. § 551.
2. Whether, after disposing of all federal claims, the district court properly dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Comcast on the Cable Act claims.
- The court held the coded information stored in the converter boxes was not “personally identifiable information” because it did not itself identify a particular subscriber.
- Because the converter-box information was not personally identifiable information, the court did not treat § 551’s retention/destruction limits as applicable to that data.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal without prejudice of the state-law claims, holding the district court acted within its discretion under § 1367(c)(3) after dismissing all federal claims.

## Legal Principles

- Under 47 U.S.C. § 551, information is not “personally identifiable” merely because a cable operator can link a device identifier to a subscriber by consulting separate billing records; the stored data must itself identify the subscriber to fall within the statute’s protection as applied in this case.
- Section 551(a)’s destruction requirement applies only to “personally identifiable information”; if the challenged information is not personally identifiable, the statutory retention limits are not triggered.
- A federal court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, and may dismiss the state claims without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit held that coded converter-box purchase data and a unit address were not “personally identifiable information” under the Cable Act because the box did not itself contain subscriber-identifying details, and it upheld the district court’s discretionary dismissal without prejudice of remaining state-law claims once the federal claims were resolved.


Pruitt v. Comcast Cable Holdings, L.L.C., 100 F. App’x 713 (10th Cir. 2004)