Asset Marketing Services, LLC v. JAM Products, Inc.et al

Background

The court considered two motions in limine, which are requests asking the court to decide before trial whether particular evidence may be presented. The motions raised whether the Hobby Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq., gives businesses such as Asset Marketing Services, LLC a private right of action—a right to file a lawsuit to seek relief under the statute.

The Act prohibits importing, distributing, or selling an imitation numismatic item that is not plainly and permanently marked “copy.” Its enforcement provision says that “any interested person” may bring a civil action for injunctive relief and damages. The Act does not define “person,” but Federal Trade Commission regulations define the term to include individuals, groups, associations, partnerships, and other business entities.

Parties’ arguments

The defendants argued that “any interested person” means only coin collectors, hobbyists, and other unsophisticated consumers. They therefore asked the court to prevent Asset Marketing from presenting evidence related to its Hobby Protection Act claim.

Asset Marketing argued that the statute is not limited to those categories and asked the court to allow evidence supporting its claim under the Act.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the Act’s plain language permits sophisticated entities such as Asset Marketing to seek relief. The statute says “any interested person,” not “any interested hobbyist, collector, or other unsophisticated consumer.” The court found that the defendants’ proposed limitation was unsupported by the statutory text, inconsistent with the Federal Trade Commission’s regulations, and contrary to the liberal interpretation generally given to consumer-protection laws.

The court also reasoned that the defendants’ interpretation would create an unreasonable result. Because the Act uses “person” both for someone who violates the statute and for someone who may sue, treating “person” as limited to unsophisticated consumers could mean that the Act’s private enforcement provision applied only when an unsophisticated consumer violated the statute. The court concluded that Congress did not intend that result.

Because the statutory language was clear, the court did not need to consider the defendants’ legislative-history arguments. The court added that allowing merchant entities to enforce the Act is consistent with its consumer-protection purpose because merchants may use their resources to help keep imitation coins out of the market.

Ruling

The court found that the Hobby Protection Act confers a private right of action on entities like Asset Marketing. It therefore denied in part the defendants’ Motion in Limine [Doc. No. 38] and granted Asset Marketing’s Motion in Limine [Doc. No. 42]. The opinion does not specify in this text what other portion of the defendants’ motion was denied or how the rulings affected any other issues at trial.