Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group
834 F.2d 1163, 1987 WL 21008 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An obligation to pay money is not a "debt" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) unless it arises from a consensual consumer transaction involving an offer or extension of credit; a demand for payment to settle an asserted tort liability does not qualify.
Facts:
- Home Box Office, Inc. (HBO) and its Affiliates distribute video programming via microwave signal to paying subscribers.
- The Affiliates initiated an anti-theft campaign against non-subscribers who were allegedly receiving the signal illegally, also known as signal "piracy."
- The Affiliates hired Conley and Wanning, Inc. (C & W) to identify unauthorized users by visually inspecting homes for specific types of antennae.
- On January 10, 1986, the Affiliates sent a letter to approximately 5,600 people, including plaintiff Zimmerman, accusing them of violating federal law by illegally receiving the HBO signal.
- The letter threatened a federal lawsuit and offered to settle all claims for $300 if paid by a specified date.
- Zimmerman received the letter but did not have an antenna capable of receiving the HBO signal on his property.
- Other recipients of the letter similarly did not have the specified antenna or had antennas for other purposes.
- As a result of the letters, the defendants collected approximately $150,000 in settlement payments.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Zimmerman filed a class action lawsuit against the HBO Affiliate Group in the U.S. District Court, alleging violations of the FDCPA, RICO, and state law.
- The district court granted Zimmerman's motions for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, which barred the defendants from filing lawsuits and ordered them to place collected funds in escrow.
- Zimmerman filed an amended complaint, adding a count seeking a declaratory judgment under the Federal Communications Act.
- The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice and dissolving the preliminary injunction.
- Zimmerman, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a demand for monetary settlement for an asserted tort claim of signal piracy constitute an attempt to collect a 'debt' within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Mansmann, J.
No. A demand for money to settle an asserted tort claim is not an attempt to collect a 'debt' under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because a 'debt' must arise from a consensual transaction involving an offer or extension of credit. The court reasoned that the statutory definition of 'debt' requires a 'transaction' in which a consumer is offered or extended the right to acquire 'money, property, insurance, or services' and to defer payment. The legislative history of the FDCPA, which is an amendment to the Consumer Credit Protection Act, confirms that Congress's intent was to regulate the collection of obligations arising from such consensual credit transactions, not to address asserted tort liabilities. The court, citing its precedent in Staub v. Harris, held that the relationship must involve a pro tanto exchange, which is absent in a case of alleged signal piracy. Therefore, the defendants' demand letter seeking settlement for the alleged tort of signal theft falls outside the scope of the FDCPA.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by distinguishing between consumer debts and tort liabilities. By holding that a 'debt' under the FDCPA must originate from a consensual transaction involving the extension of credit, the court created a clear boundary that excludes settlement demands for tortious conduct like signal piracy or theft. This precedent limits the remedies available to individuals who receive aggressive settlement demands for alleged torts, as they cannot invoke the protections of the FDCPA. Consequently, entities pursuing tort claims are not bound by the same stringent communication and conduct rules that govern traditional third-party debt collectors.
