A small business owner in Arizona is facing a $250,000 legal demand from the UFC after she had a Paramount broadcast of the UFC White House event playing on the TV at her virtual golf simulator business, and the story has the internet divided.
The woman, who goes by @valencia_bunch on Instagram, posted a video explaining her situation, describing herself as a mom and small business owner who never imagined having a UFC event on in the background would land her in legal trouble.
The core of her argument is: UFC events are no longer locked behind traditional pay-per-view paywalls the way they once were. Major events now air on Paramount, a subscription service that millions of households and businesses access through standard cable or internet packages.
She says she had a legitimate Paramount subscription and that the broadcast was simply on in her establishment, the same way a sports bar might have any game on its TVs. In her view, the old rules about paying commercial licensing fees for pay-per-view events should not apply to content that is freely available through a subscription.
Not everyone is convinced. Some commenters pushed back, noting that there is a meaningful legal difference between a personal home subscription and using that same subscription to show content in a commercial setting where customers are paying to be present.
One commenter pointed out bluntly, “You advertised it though,” suggesting that any public promotion of the event could be what triggered the complaint in the first place.
One commenter who claimed to have been through a nearly identical situation over a decade ago shared what the process looked like for him.
“That happened to me,” he wrote. “They were wanting $38,000 and they settled for $15,000 in 2014. I was having people come to the house and decided to go to our vape shop and watch instead. I had already paid and brought the DirecTV box to the store. They assumed we were using the events to get people in. They were ruthless and didn’t give a care. Good luck.”
Others questioned whether the demand is even coming from the UFC at all, given the shift to Paramount. “I think that’s the TV provider,” wrote one person. “We had a restaurant and got audited by ASCAP and BMI because we didn’t pay royalties for the songs we were playing in the establishment.”
Several commenters echoed the point that the actual legal party behind the demand may be Paramount itself rather than the UFC organization.
A few people speculated the whole letter could be a scam. “I feel like you’re being extorted,” wrote one. “It doesn’t add up, especially if you aren’t doing huge advertised events or charging a cover charge.”
Another noted that $250,000 represents the maximum statutory penalty per violation, and that courts often reduce that figure significantly for first-time offenders.
For now, the business owner says she is looking for help and hoping the public attention reaches someone who can intervene.
