Who Can They Name? The Entity, the Individual, and the Employee Who Put It On

A signal-piracy complaint that names you by your own name, not just your LLC or corporation, is consistent with how these cases are routinely pleaded. It is not necessarily a mistake, and it is not, by itself, a finding that you personally owe anything. Two things are true at once, and most owners have heard only one of them. Operating through an LLC or corporation does not automatically keep the person who runs the business out of the case, and being named personally does not automatically make you personally liable. Whether an individual is on the hook alongside the business turns on a specific test the plaintiff has to meet, and courts have gone both ways on it. This page maps who a signal-piracy plaintiff can name and the test that decides it, under the statutes those claims run on (47 U.S.C. § 605 for a satellite feed and 47 U.S.C. § 553 for a cable feed).

Who a Signal-Piracy Plaintiff Can Name

When a distributor’s authorized agent (Joe Hand Promotions, G&G Closed Circuit Events, and J&J Sports Productions are among the common ones) brings a claim under §§ 553 or 605, the caption can list more than one defendant. The map has a settled center and several fact-specific edges:

• The operating business (the LLC, corporation, or partnership that ran the establishment and held the residential account) is the standard defendant, the entity the statute reaches first.
• The individual owner, officer, or manager can be named alongside it, but only where a two-part test is met. This is the contested question most personal-name letters raise.
• The person who physically showed it (an employee, an outside promoter, or a tenant) does not shift the analysis by themselves; the same test decides whether an individual is exposed.
• A former owner or a successor business is not automatically caught by a claim; who operated the establishment on the night of the showing is what matters.
• A franchisee or one location in a group is assessed on the same test; naming a parent company or franchisor is not automatic.

The default defendant, the business, is the least complicated part. The establishment that showed an unlicensed broadcast on a residential account is the party the aggrieved distributor sues first, and the statutory damages and fee award run against it (under § 605 a court “shall direct” recovery of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; under § 553 it “may”). What that business-level exposure looks like is the subject of how these cases resolve and what venues pay. This page owns the harder question: when the individual comes along too.

When the Individual Can Be Named: the Two-Part Test

Most federal courts decide an owner’s or officer’s personal liability under §§ 553 and 605 with a test borrowed from copyright law, called vicarious liability. It has two elements a court applies together. In J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Ramsey, the Third Circuit stated it this way: to hold an individual liable, the plaintiff “must prove that the individual: (1) has the right and ability to supervise the violative activity, although he need not actually be supervising, because he need not know of the violative activity, and (2) has a direct financial interest in the violation, i.e., financial benefits, even if not proportional or precisely calculable, that directly flow from the violative activity.”

Two features of that standard matter for reading a letter that names you. First, the supervisory element is about the right and ability to supervise, not proof that you watched the screen or chose the event; the court noted the individual “need not actually be supervising” and “need not know of the violative activity.” Second, the financial-interest element is broad, requiring only a benefit that flows from the showing, not one that is proportional or precisely measured. The test is the same under both statutes; as Ramsey put it, “because courts have adopted the same test for personal liability under both statutes, we need not differentiate between personal liability under §§ 553 or 605.”

Other federal courts state the same two elements in their own words. A District of New Mexico court, joining what it called the “vast majority of federal courts,” held that owners and officers “may be held liable for the acts of their corporation when those officers or owners have a right and ability to supervise the actions of their corporation and a strong financial incentive to commit unlawful conduct” (Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Kay). Courts in Arizona (G&G Closed Circuit Events, LLC v. Ayala) and North Carolina (J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Hernandez) apply the same two-element rule.

This is the prevailing approach, not a single nationwide rule. Some courts have been skeptical that a copyright-law test belongs in a Communications Act case at all, and at least one district applies a stricter standard asking whether there is “no distinction” between the individual’s actions and the corporation’s (the Kay opinion collects both lines). No Supreme Court decision and no binding, precedential appeals-court holding settles it, and the Ramsey opinion quoted above is itself non-precedential. The honest statement is that the two-part test is what most courts use, and where it applies, both parts have to be met.

An LLC Does Not Automatically Protect You

The most common belief this test corrects is that an LLC or corporation is a wall between the person and the claim. It is not, because the test looks straight past the corporate form to what the individual actually did. The question is not whether an entity exists on paper; it is whether the person had the right and ability to supervise the operation and a direct financial stake in it.

Sole owners and owner-operators routinely meet both parts, precisely because running the place supplies the supervisory right and owning it supplies the financial interest. In Hernandez, the defendant admitted he solely owned the restaurant corporation, and the court found his “own statements bolster the inference that he had the right and ability to supervise” the activity and “held a financial stake in such activities as the sole owner.” In Ayala, individual members and managers listed on the state corporation records were held liable “jointly and severally” with the LLC after the plaintiff alleged both the supervisory right and an “obvious and direct financial interest.” When personal liability attaches, it is joint with the entity, meaning the plaintiff can collect the full judgment from the individual, the business, or both. So a demand or complaint with your personal name on it is not proof of an error, and “I have an LLC” is not, on its own, an answer to it.

But Personal Liability Is Not Automatic Either

The opposite overcorrection is just as wrong, and it is the one an owner already named personally is most likely to make: reading the caption as a decision that their house and savings are gone. Being named is a choice the plaintiff makes in drafting the complaint. It is not a finding. The plaintiff still has to prove both parts of the test, and a court can refuse to impose personal liability when the proof falls short.

That is what happened in Ramsey. The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of individual liability, holding that the evidence did not meet the test. The court explained that “an ownership interest or right in an LLC as a managing member alone is insufficient to establish liability,” and that the defendant’s having “applied for and received the amusement and business licenses is insufficient to show he had the right to control or supervise the activities” at the establishment. There was no evidence of the individual “ordering the telecast, advertising the telecast or his presence” at the showing. Managing-member status plus a name on a license, without more, did not add up to personal liability. The court noted the difference elsewhere: a liquor license was enough in another case because it identified the individual as the “president, secretary/treasurer, director, stockholder, and manager/steward” of the business. The line is not whether a document carries a name; it is whether the proof shows the two things the test requires.

What This Means for You

• Being named personally is a serious risk flag, not a verdict. It signals the plaintiff intends to pursue you individually; it does not establish that they can.
• The question is factual and specific to you: did you have the right and ability to supervise the showing, and a direct financial interest in it? A general page cannot answer that for your situation, and this one does not try to.
• Do not treat a personal-name letter as either harmless or already lost. Both readings are wrong, and both lead to bad decisions.
• Whether your ownership structure or how you operate changes your exposure is a fact-specific legal question for a licensed attorney who can look at your actual setup, covered in how to find and vet the right lawyer.

When an Employee, Promoter, or Tenant Put It On

A frequent version of the personal-liability worry is that someone else physically turned on the feed: a bartender, a manager, an outside event promoter, or a tenant who rented the space for the night. Who pressed the button does not, by itself, decide who is exposed.

For the individual owner, the analysis is the same two-part test. An owner who was not present, did not choose the event, and did not know the specific showing was happening can still meet the supervisory element, because that element asks about the right and ability to supervise, which an owner of the operation generally has, not about actual supervision on the night. The financial-interest element is likewise usually present for an owner. That is why “my employee did it and I wasn’t even there” is not, on its own, a personal-liability defense; the test was written to reach that situation. The facts still cut both ways at the edges: an owner who authorized, directed, or advertised the showing sits very differently from one whose employee acted entirely on their own, and some courts treat an individual who authorized the violation as liable on a related theory. Whether a particular employee’s or promoter’s act reaches a particular owner personally is fact-specific, the kind of question sorted out with counsel rather than from a general rule.

Former Owners and Successors

A claim does not automatically travel to whoever holds a name or a business now. What matters is who operated the establishment when the unlicensed showing occurred. A person who sold before the event, or who bought it afterward, is in a different position from the operator on the night in question, and being the current owner of a going concern is not the same as having supervised and profited from a past showing. This is genuinely fact-specific: successor liability, the timing of a sale, and how an entity was wound down turn on records and dates rather than a general principle. If a demand or suit names a former owner, or names a buyer for a predecessor’s showing, the mismatch is worth raising with an attorney who can line up the facts.

Franchises and Multiple Locations

Owning several establishments, or operating one under a franchise, does not automatically pool liability across all of them or pull in a parent company. Each entity and each individual is measured on the same two-part test for the specific showing at the specific location. A person who supervised and profited from the operation at one location does not thereby become liable for a showing at a location they did not control. Whether a parent entity, a franchisor, or an individual with an interest across locations can be named for a particular event depends on that person’s actual role where the showing happened, not on the organizational chart.

Whether Restructuring Changes This Is a Question for Counsel

A natural next thought, on learning that an LLC is not automatic protection, is to ask whether a different structure would help. That is a legitimate question, and not one a general explainer can answer for an individual situation. Entity structuring and how a business is operated turn on details a page cannot see, and explaining the liability test is not the same as advising on structure. The right place for that question is a licensed attorney who can look at your actual operation, which is what how to find and vet the right lawyer is for.

Where to Go From Here

• For the overall picture of what a letter or a lawsuit over a game you showed actually is, start at letter or lawsuit over a game you showed.
• To understand the business-level stakes, how these cases are detected, demanded, and sued, and what venues actually pay, see how these cases resolve and what venues pay.
• To decide what to do about a demand or a claim, settle, challenge, decline, or escalate, see your real options.
• If restructuring, entity questions, or a personal name on a filed suit is the issue, that is counsel’s work; start with how to find and vet the right lawyer.

Frequently Asked Questions

They Named Me Personally, Not Just My LLC. Am I Automatically Liable?

No. Being named personally in a signal-piracy complaint is a choice the plaintiff makes in drafting it, not a finding that you owe anything. To hold you individually liable, most federal courts require proof of a two-part test: that you had the right and ability to supervise the violation and a direct financial interest in it. A federal appeals court affirmed a refusal to impose personal liability where the proof was only managing-member status and a name on a license (J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Ramsey). Whether your own facts meet the test is a specific legal question for an attorney.

Doesn’t My LLC Protect Me From a Signal-Piracy Claim?

Not automatically. The test most courts use looks past the corporate form to what the individual actually did: whether the person had the right and ability to supervise the operation and a direct financial stake in it. Sole owners and owner-operators frequently meet both parts, because running and owning the business supplies them. An LLC or corporation does real work in other settings, but it does not by itself remove an owner who controls and profits from the operation from the claim.

My Bartender Put the Fight On Without Asking Me. Does That Get Me Off the Hook Personally?

Not on its own. The supervisory element asks about your right and ability to supervise the operation, which an owner generally has, not about whether you were present or approved the specific event. That is why “an employee did it and I wasn’t there” is usually not a complete personal-liability defense. The facts still matter at the edges, and whether a particular employee’s act reaches you personally is fact-specific, so it is worth working through with counsel rather than assuming either result.

Is Personal Liability the Same Under Section 605 and Section 553?

Yes, courts apply the same personal-liability test under both. The statutes differ in their damages structure and in whether a fee award is mandatory or discretionary, but the standard for reaching the individual behind the business, the two-part supervise-and-financial-interest test, is the same under 47 U.S.C. § 605 (satellite) and 47 U.S.C. § 553 (cable). As one appeals court put it, because courts have adopted the same test under both statutes, there was no need to differentiate between them.