Being sued by Direct TV....HELP!

[ScubaDiver2001]

Almost two years ago I purchased a used Direct TV system. I saw an ad on the Internet offering to send off the "H" card to a company in Canada to "repair" it so that it would receive all channels. I stupidly did this. Meantime I found out that such a card is illegal. I never used the system and when the card came back I sold the entire system on EBay. Now in July of this year I get a letter from an attorney representing Direct TV telling me that I my "purchase, possession and use of signal theft equipment...subjects me to statutory damages of up to $10,000 per violation and could reach up to $100,000. The lawyer is offering me alternatives to being charged/sued. They are now offering me a settlement of paying a fine of $500.00 and subscribing to one year of Direct TV. I feel I am innocent but also over a barrell. Anyone have any suggestions? I really do not have the money to pay this. I appreciate any help.

 

[racer72]

Pay the $500 and move on. If you allow them to sue, you will lose. You admit to possessing an illegal equipment, even if you did not use it. You might see if they will work out a deal by turning in the party you sold the unit to. Don't let them tell you they know who it is already, once you pay they will hound you for the info on the person you sold the unit to, and they will threaten to sue again.

 

[smartone]

I'm not a lawyer, but I agree with the previous message, you admit you knew that the "H" card reprogramming was illegal. When you sold it to the poor unsuspecting soul on Ebay, did you inform them that the "H" card was program illegal. If you did, they're just as guilty as you are. But if you did'nt inform them during the bid, then you need to just give directv what info they need. It's not worth the money, and besides that person just might turn around and sell the system, then you have more people involve in your problem, that might turn around and sue you.

 

[JETX]

This lawyer that is threatening you, is it Scott Wilsdon from Seattle? If so, he is paid by DTV to chase people that DTV believes have illegally received their service. He is basically a 'legal bounty hunter', and gets to keep a percentage of anything he 'scares' out of his victims (yes, I have dealt with him in the past, and to answer your question, no not as a 'party' to his actions).

Here is what probably happened.... DTV seized the records of the individual in Canada who provided you with the 'pirated' H-card. They are now using that information to contact all his 'customers' and threatening them with 'action or pay' letters.

My suggestion... Don't pay them. Ownership of the card (even a 'pirated' card) is NOT illegal, the use of that card to steal service IS illegal (under the FCC). That is called 'theft of service'. If you never stole the service you are not liable for their 'settlement' charge. I would suggest that you send a polite letter to Mr. Wilsdon and ask that he provide some proof to support his claims of your alleged theft of service or that you owned or used any illegal satellite reception device. Send it certified RRR and keep a copy.

Here are some links of interest:
http://www.legal-rights.org/dtvkaka.html
http://www.dssbandits.com/news/arc4-2001.shtml

 

[ScubaDiver2001]

THANKS JETX Best response I have had yet. Seems like the others are misreading my message. Yes, this is the same law firm that is corresponding with me. I have NEVER used the card, never received any service from Direct TV, never had the dished hooked up in any way, I really do not feel I have done anything wrong. I maybe made a bad judgement call before doing some research but I never stole a signal. I really appreciate your advise and will check the links you suggest.

 

[DTV]

DirecTv Lawsuit

I got that letter too, from a firm in Texas - Robert Swofford. I bought a piece of equipment used to get programming, not a card. It was purchased for a friend that did not want the charges on his credit card (a wife thing). He wants $3,000 and 1 year of DTV programming to settle.

I am tempted to go to court.

What should I do?

 

[JETX]

Re: DirecTv Lawsuit

I am tempted to go to court.

What should I do?

The answer to that question can only be determined by you.

 

[JohnDoeDoe]

DTV

I too received a letter from Robert Swofford. I may or may not contact them. Still haven't read anything that indicates he has taken anyone to court.

 

[DTV]

DTV

I have a relative that is a Judge. He told me to not talk to him anymore, he may be recording my calls and he said in some states only 1 party has to know if the call is being recorded and that can be Mr. Swofford. He said to get an attorney to deal with him.

 

[boogle]

Texas is one of those states

Because Texas allows recording of conversations if at least one person in the party knows about the recording it is very possible that he Has recorded your conversations to date. I worked for the legal department of a teacher's association for a while and the attorneys told their clients time and time again to record their conversations with people they were having trouble with and that they were within their legal rights to be the only one who knew about the recording. Now, I don't know if that applies to Telephone conversations . . . the law I'm referring to requires the person who knows of the recording to be in the same room, physically, as that in which the recorded conversation was taking place.

 

[Robert R. Hood]

Direct TV Collections

You need a determination as to whether the mere ownership of a device is not illegal, the H card.

It sounds as if the collection attorney is misrepresenting the legal basis for making a claim. If the ownership of the H card is not illegal, and the collections attorney is pressuring you, and possibly hundreds of others to pay money when no money is due, you could have the basis for a class action lawsuit against Direct TV.

Somebody needs to clarify the legal point, is possession illegal?
Second, if only usage is illegal, how do they determine usage? Unless you confess, can they prove usage? Probably most of the buyers did use the card, but it appears that the collections attorney is presenting ownership as a legal basis for collection. Your local personal injury lawyer may want to take a run at Direct TV. It wouldn't be the first time that a big company failed to keep their collections people under control. And realistically, you are being badgered for something that you didn't do, so this lawyer and Direct TV could be violating consumer fraud laws.

If it looks like a good suit, most personal injury attorneys will sue a big company without costs to the plaintiff. Turn the tables on these guys.

 

[JETX]

I feel that I have already responded as needed to this thread, but feel with this latest post that something needs to be clarified...

The latest thread said, "If the ownership of the H card is not illegal... "

None of us 'owns' the card. If you read the back of the card (I have an H in front of me), it says (depending on the card supplier), "This card is the property of News Datacom Ltd. and must be returned upon request.".

 

[Robert R. Hood]

Direct TV Collections

I am still confused. Merely stating that the H card "is the property of XYZ and must be returned" doesn't make it so.

It's hard for me to comprehend a sale that apparently involves significant money, with the ownership of one key component being retained by the seller or a 3rd party not directly participating in the sale. That doesn't happen with the computer chip in your car that controls the fuel injection system, nor the chip in your TV, etc.

Modern companies seldom "manufacture" products. Most companies are merely assembly plants, using materials sourced from numerous suppliers. The previous message states that Direct TV is buying H cards from various sources, i.e. suppliers. An interesting point for discovery would be, in the supplier agreements, is Direct buying all rights to the H card, or do the various suppliers retain rights?

If Direct TV is "selling" reception equipment, they are making an implied promise (assuming it's not contradicted by a specific written agreement) to the buyers that they have paid for the goods they are transferrring, and also implying that the buyer is getting free and unrestricted title to the goods being purchased, unless they specifically state this is not the case.

Is Direct TV specifically and clearly advising buyers that part of the goods being "purchased" are not the property of Direct? Unless there is a representation, the implication is that Direct is transferring title, and the buyer should be able to rely on that implied warranty of title.

It appears that there is a market in used Direct TV equipment, confirmed by the fact that e-Bay accepts them for sale. This implies that the general marketplace feels that buyers of Direct TV equipment are the owners of the equipment.

What does the original contract with Direct TV say? Does it specify within the contract that "buyers" are buying something and Direct TV is transferring title? Does the contract say that "certain parts are furnished for the convenience of buyer but must be returned upon request"?

I would think that if the contract fails to retain ownership rights of the H card to Direct, or a named 3rd party, that the ownership rights are fully vested in the buyer, to do as they please.

However, the usage of a modified card would be clearly illegal. But not the mere ownership. So what's up, has anybody got a contract handy?

Has anybody taken the time to read the Direct TV contract in reference to who has/gets/transfers/retains ownership of the H card?

 

[laboy25]

DTV,

Please let me know your situation. I got the same letter from the same firm in Texas.. Maybe we can help each other out with this?

 

[whiterabbit]

dtv

i got a summons from federal court today!! from dtv for buying a decoder , like others i messed up the card, had to buy a new one just to watch dtv, never stole thier signal.i got a leete r from dtv last oct told them this , they wanted the device and $4000.oo which i didn't have. also no, longer had decoder thingy, threw it out. now have 20 days to ans the court. no idea what to do