U.S. Code » Title 47 » Chapter CHAPTER 5— WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V–A— CABLE COMMUNICATIONS › Part Part IV— Miscellaneous Provisions

47 U.S.C. § 553

Unauthorized reception of cable service

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 47 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Unauthorized interception or receipt or assistance in intercepting or receiving service; “assist in intercepting or receiving” defined(1) No person shall intercept or receive or assist in intercepting or receiving any communications service offered over a cable system, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law.(2) For the purpose of this section, the term “assist in intercepting or receiving” shall include the manufacture or distribution of equipment intended by the manufacturer or distributor (as the case may be) for unauthorized reception of any communications service offered over a cable system in violation of subparagraph (1).(b) Penalties for willful violation(1) Any person who willfully violates subsection (a)(1) shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months, or both.(2) Any person who violates subsection (a)(1) willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.(3) For purposes of all penalties and remedies established for violations of subsection (a)(1), the prohibited activity established herein as it applies to each such device shall be deemed a separate violation.(c) Civil action in district court; injunctions; damages; attorney’s fees and costs; regulation by States or franchising authorities(1) Any person aggrieved by any violation of subsection (a)(1) may bring a civil action in a United States district court or in any other court of competent jurisdiction.(2) The court may—(A) grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain violations of subsection (a)(1);(B) award damages as described in paragraph (3); and(C) direct the recovery of full costs, including awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees to an aggrieved party who prevails.(3)(A) Damages awarded by any court under this section shall be computed in accordance with either of the following clauses:(i) the party aggrieved may recover the actual damages suffered by him as a result of the violation and any profits of the violator that are attributable to the violation which are not taken into account in computing the actual damages; in determining the violator’s profits, the party aggrieved shall be required to prove only the violator’s gross revenue, and the violator shall be required to prove his deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the violation; or(ii) the party aggrieved may recover an award of statutory damages for all violations involved in the action, in a sum of not less than $250 or more than $10,000 as the court considers just.(B) In any case in which the court finds that the violation was committed willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, the court in its discretion may increase the award of damages, whether actual or statutory under subparagraph (A), by an amount of not more than $50,000.(C) In any case where the court finds that the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that his acts constituted a violation of this section, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of damages to a sum of not less than $100.(D) Nothing in this subchapter shall prevent any State or franchising authority from enacting or enforcing laws, consistent with this section, regarding the unauthorized interception or reception of any cable service or other communications service.(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title VI, § 633, as added Pub. L. 98–549, § 2, Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2796; amended Pub. L. 102–385, § 21, Oct. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 1498.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1992—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 102–385, § 21(1), substituted “$50,000” for “$25,000”, “2 years” for “1 year”, “$100,000” for “$50,000”, and “5 years” for “2 years”.

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 102–385, § 21(2), added par. (3).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–385 effective 60 days after Oct. 5, 1992, see section 28 of Pub. L. 102–385, set out as a note under section 325 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective 60 days after Oct. 30, 1984, except where otherwise expressly provided, see section 9(a) of Pub. L. 98–549, set out as a note under section 521 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 584 cases (244 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Yakubets, 3 F. Supp. 3d 261 (E.D. Pa. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Yakubets, 3 F. Supp. 3d 261 (E.D. Pa. 2014). · cites it 34× “14), Joe Hand seeks statutory and enhanced damages for Cafe Nostalgie and Victor Yakubets’s unlawful interception of cable programming under 47 U.S.C. § 553 (a)(1); 1 vicarious liability against Mr.”
Prostar v. Massachi, 239 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2001). · cites it 17× “PER CURIAM: This case presents us with the task of determining the appropriate statute of limitations for an action brought under 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605. As these provisions contain no express limitations period, the district court adopted the one-year prescriptive period for…”
Cablevision of S. Connecticut, Ltd. P'ship v. Smith, 141 F. Supp. 2d 277 (D. Conn. 2001). · cites it 13× “This is an action for statutory damages for unauthorized interception of cable television services and for the sale and distribution of devices designed to effect the unauthorized interception of cable television services, under 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 (a) and 605. Plaintiff…”
Ent. by J & J, Inc. v. Al-Waha Enter., Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 769 (S.D. Tex. 2002). · cites it 14× “a/k/a El-Mirage Mediterranean Cuisine d/b/a El-Mirage a/k/a El-Mirage Restaurant (“Al-Waha”) on its claims under Section *771 705 of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 , 605 (“FCA”). Iyad Omar Khalil (“Khalil”) has previously been dismissed as a…”
Int'l Cablevision, Inc., Doing Bus. as Adelphia Cable v. John Sykes, 997 F.2d 998 (2d Cir. 1993). · cites it 12× “Curtin, Judge, dismissing its complaint against defendant John Sykes alleging his sale of a device designed to unscramble Cablevision’s signals in violation of 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 (a) and 605 (1988) and state law.”
Csc Holdings, Inc. v. Frank P. Redisi, Sr., & Frank P. Redisi, Jr., 309 F.3d 988 (7th Cir. 2002). · cites it 6× “In May 1999, Cablevision brought suit for violations of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. § 553 , and secured a temporary restraining order and asset freeze against the Redisis and their businesses.”
Time Warner Ent./Advance-Newhouse P'ship v. Worldwide Elec., L.C., 50 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (S.D. Fla. 1999). · cites it 20× “THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the plaintiff, Time Warner Entertainment/Advance Newhouse Partnership d/b/a Time Warner Cable’s (“TWEAN” or “plaintiff’) motion for summary judgment on its claims against some of the defendants under the Cable Communications Policy Act of…”
J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Patel, 364 F. Supp. 3d 1368 (S.D. Ga. 2018). · cites it 13× “The investigator saw the Program being broadcast on at least one television screen at Peaches. Id. Plaintiff avers that Defendants did not purchase from Plaintiff the right to display the Program commercially, and Plaintiff sued Defendants to recover damages under 47 U.”
Gen. Instrument Corp. of Delaware at No. 98-1502 v. Nu-Tek Elec. & Mfg., Inc., at No. 98-1424, 197 F.3d 83 (3rd Cir. 1999). · cites it 8× “See 47 U.S.CA. § 553 (West 1991 & Supp.1999).”
Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Corp., Ltd. v. 898 Belmont, Inc., D/B/A El Toro Bar Berhanu Degife, 366 F.3d 217 (3rd Cir. 2004). · cites it 7× “It is uncontested that on March 13, 1999, without King Vision’s authorization, the El Toro Bar intercepted and broadcast the Evan-der Holyfield/Lennox Lewis championship boxing match and “associated undercard bouts” to its patrons.”
J & J Sports Prods. v. Coyne, 857 F. Supp. 2d 909 (N.D. Cal. 2012). · cites it 18× “§ 605 , and 47 U.S.C. § 553 . J & J cross-moved for Partial Summary Judgment on the 47 U.”
Int'l Cablevision, Inc. v. Noel, 859 F. Supp. 69 (W.D.N.Y. 1994). · cites it 16× “, d/b/a Adelphia Cable (“Cablevision”), brought this action against defendant Marvin Noel seeking damages and injunctive relief, claiming that Noel sold electronic devices designed to permit unauthorized interception and decoding of Cablevision’s cable television programming…”
Show all 584 citing cases →
— 47 U.S.C. § 553(1)(2006) — 1 case
Comcast of Los Angeles, Inc. v. Sandoval (In re Sandoval), 341 B.R. 282 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2006).
— 47 U.S.C. § 553(a) — 1 case
CSC Holdings, Inc. v. Toporek, 185 F. Supp. 2d 283 (E.D.N.Y 2002).
— 47 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1) — 1 case
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. RLWRHC Inc. (D. Minnesota 2023).
— 47 U.S.C. § 553(c) — 1 case
Innovative Sports Mgmt., Inc. v. Paisa's Truck, LLC (S.D. Tex. 2024).
— 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(2)(C) — 1 case
Innovative Sports Mgmt., Inc. v. Lizcano Reyes (N.D. Cal. 2025).
— 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A) — 1 case
Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Duke Bus. Grp., LLC doing Bus. as Ciscos Bourbon & Cigar Club, et al. (M.D. Ala. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.