[jrkatz]

Elaborating, my understanding is that the 'accept interference' bit is more about placing such devices low on the legal totem pole: The TV owner or manufacturer doesn't have a legal right to _not_ be interfered with; it _must accept_ interference. Whether it continues to work or fails after 'accepting' the interference is its own business. With that interpretation, they would be in violation of that clause if they sued the router manufacturer over this.