According to Torrent Freak the Federal Court in Canada has handed down a interlocutory injunction against the devices’ distributors.
Each device is loaded with Kodi software (with pirate addons) and Showbox. They are now banned from sale pending a full trial.

Bell Canada, Rogers Communications, Videotron and others are taking on several retailers of Android set-top boxes. They say that as station operators they own the Canadian rights to a variety of TV shows and these devices are designed to get around those rights.

The defendants include ITVBOX.NET, My Electronics, Android Bros, WatchNSaveNow and MTLFreeTV.

The devices were the subject of an investigation in April 2015 by the telly studios. They not only found that the devices provided access to their content for free, but also that the defendants advertised their products as a way to avoid paying cable bills.

As a result the TV companies went to court in an effort to obtain an interlocutory injunction to stop the devices being made available for sale. The plaintiffs made claims under both the Copyright Act and Radio communication Act, the latter due to the devices receiving “illegally decrypted programming”.

Describing pre-loaded set-top boxes as an “existential threat” to their businesses, the plaintiffs said that piracy and subsequent declining subscriptions are the main factors behind falling revenue. On this basis and as a deterrent to others supplying such devices, an injunction should be granted.

Only one defendant attended the hearing. Vincent Wesley of MTLFreeTV told the court that he had nothing to do with the development or maintenance of the installed software. The set-top boxes, he argued, are just pieces of hardware like a tablet or computer and have “substantial non-infringing uses.”

Judge Daniele Tremblay-Lamer was not impressed and said that the devices marketed, sold and programmed by the Defendants enable consumers to obtain unauthorised access to content for which the Plaintiffs own the copyright. She said:

“This is not a case where the Defendants merely serve as the conduit, as was argued by Wesley. Rather, they deliberately encourage consumers and potential clients to circumvent authorized ways of accessing content — say, by a cable subscription or by streaming content from the Plaintiffs’ websites — both in the manner in which they promote their business, and by offering tutorials in how to add and use applications which rely on illegally obtained content.”

The judge said that other companies selling similar devices could joined as parties to the injunction, should the plaintiffs identify them as defendants.