Federal judge considers scope of injunction

LOS ANGELES -- A federal judge said Monday he's considering granting a preliminary injunction against the makers of a TV device allegedly used to access illegal movie streams, but he doesn't want it to shut the company down.

TickBox TV LLC's owners say their device allows users to perform the common functions of a smartphone, tablet, or other device through their televisions.

But as noted by the plaintiffs, a group of studios that includes Disney Enterprises Inc., Netflix Studios LLC, and Universal City Studios Productions LLLP, TickBox also flaunts its supposed access to thousands of free films and television series.

Plaintiffs claim that a TickBox device grants customers easy access to third party applications through which they can find illegal versions of films and television shows.

While customers can download legitimate apps like ESPN or Netflix, plaintiffs claim TickBox offers customers "theme" packages that automatically install the third party programs necessary to access illegal content. Universal City Studios Productions LLLP v. TickBox TV LLC, 17-CV7496 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 13, 2017).

U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald said Monday that the plaintiffs had made a strong case for the necessity of a preliminary injunction, but he was "reluctant to put TickBox out of business" with overly broad limitations.

While he acknowledged that the third party apps available through the device are a problem, he saw legitimate uses for the TickBox beyond piracy.

The device offers easy access to legal television apps as well, Fitzgerald noted. He compared TickBox to search engines, which can also be cleverly used to find illegal video streams.

"It's not consistent with the law to say TickBox can't build a product that a very sophisticated person could possibly misuse," Fitzgerald said.

However, Fitzgerald took issue with TickBox's advertising. In one ad, TickBox promises "instant access to any movie, TV show, or sports event," while in another, it tells users to "get ready to cut the cable cord."

Fitzgerald told defense counsel John Christy of Schreeder Wheeler and Flint LLP that it would be hard to make the nods to the device's supposedly unintended uses more blatant.

"If they had Daenerys Targaryen on a dragon pointing to an HBO symbol, telling you it's free, it wouldn't be more obvious," Fitzgerald said.

Plaintiff's counsel Kelly M. Klaus, a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, said there were actions TickBox could take to remove the suggestive advertising and better police offending third-party apps without harm to its core product.

Given how TickBox has previously promoted infringing content, he suggested treating the company with an abundance of caution rather than giving it the benefit of the doubt.

Back on the bench for the first time after an injury and pressed for time, Fitzgerald stopped short of granting a preliminary injunction. He instructed counsel to meet and confer over the next few weeks in preparation for a continued hearing on Feb. 12.

The case bears many similarities to the recent studio battle against movie streamer VidAngel Inc. While VidAngel promoted itself as a family friendly filtering service, it also offered a full catalogue of newly released films for as low as $1.

In that case, a preliminary injunction was granted against VidAngel, and the streaming service lost its bid to overturn the injunction in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The company filed for bankruptcy not long after.