DIRECTV, LLC v. Yuen, 1:15-cv-07699

Walter and Mandy Yuen own Great Wall of China restaurant and had a DirecTV account in Walter’s name that DirecTV records classified as "residential."
The Yuens moved a DirecTV receiver to the restaurant; Walter testifies he asked DirecTV whether he could use the receiver at the restaurant and was told he could.
On November 19, 2013, a DirecTV auditor asked Mandy to turn on a dining-room TV and change it to channel 212; the auditor photographed the DirecTV on-screen guide and filed a report.
DirecTV sued under 47 U.S.C. § 605 (among other claims) and moved for summary judgment on liability under § 605.
DirecTV produced a company printout showing the account was residential and an unsigned, unauthenticated Customer Agreement; Mader (DirecTV VP) stated the Yuens lacked the right to exhibit programming in a commercial establishment.
The Yuens produced affidavits claiming an oral authorization from a DirecTV sales representative permitting use at the restaurant and denied having received or signed the Customer Agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Yuens were authorized to display DirecTV programming in the restaurant under § 605	DirecTV: account was "residential," so no authorization to exhibit commercially; auditors’ photos show unauthorized exhibition	Yuens: sales rep told them they could use the receiver at the restaurant; reasonable to infer use could include when patrons present	Summary judgment denied — material dispute of fact on authorization
Whether an alleged oral authorization affects liability/willfulness	DirecTV: authorization relates to intent/willfulness but liability established by divulgence	Yuens: alleged oral authorization negates liability because use was authorized	Court: authorization can negate liability; factual dispute precludes summary judgment
Admissibility/authentication of DirecTV’s Customer Agreement and company records	DirecTV: printed account status and Customer Agreement support lack of authorization	Yuens: never received/agreed to the document; document unsigned/unlinked to account and therefore unauthenticated	Court: documents not authenticated/linked to Yuens; raises genuine factual dispute
Whether auditor-alone showing constitutes "divulgence" for § 605	DirecTV: showing to auditor constitutes divulgence and supports liability	Yuens: even if divulgence occurred, authorization factual issue remains	Court: divulgence occurred, but authorization remains dispositive; summary judgment improper on that ground

Ripberger v. Corizon, Inc., 773 F.3d 871 (7th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment facts and inferences drawn for nonmovant)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant's burden on summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (credibility determinations are for the factfinder at trial)
J&J Sports Prods. v. Mandell Family Ventures, LLC, 751 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2014) (discussion that § 605 addresses unauthorized interception/receipt)
Smith v. City of Chicago, 242 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2001) (summary judgment consideration limited to evidence admissible at trial)
Giant Screen Sports v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 553 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2009) (disputes about document authenticity create material fact issues)