Strike 3 Holdings is currently the most prolific copyright Plaintiff in the country. They usually follow a very particular script, suing John Does only identified by an IP address, alleging that the internet subscriber behind the IP address committed copyright infringement by downloading Vixen, Blacked, or Tushy films through BitTorrent networks. They then get a subpoena for the name of the internet subscriber, so they can sue that person in Federal court, where they could be awarded at least $750 per infringement in statutory damages.
However, it appears Strike 3 Holdings is attempting to widen their net and sue IP addresses from Internet Service Providers and states that they normally don’t focus on. For years, their subpoenas were usually to the most prominent internet providers like AT&T, Comcast, Cox, and Verizon. However, they have recently begun to target smaller or more local internet providers. For example, just in case 2020-027181-CC-05 in Miami-Dade County Court, Strike 3 asked for subpoenas to:
- Armstrong Cable
- Atlantic Broadband
- Clarksville Department of Electricity
- Grande Communications
- Hawaiian Telcom
- Longmont Power & Communications
- Mediacom Cable
- Suddenlink Communications
- Summit Broadband
- TDS Telecom
- US Internet
- Windstream Communications
Although some of these internet providers are certainly larger and more recognizable, this is far more diverse than Strike 3’s usual focus. The IP addresses have been geolocated to states including Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington. This wide range of states is why I work with a team of lawyers from across the country to provide the best defense, regardless of the state you live in.
It’s unclear what prompted this change, but some of the alleged infringements are a couple years old, meaning they have been tracking these subscribers long-term. This could mean Strike 3 is ramping up their lawsuit mill scheme and expanding to encompass subscribers from ISPs and states they normally ignore.
Most people discover that they are under threat of being sued only after they receive a notice from their ISP, which advises them that the only way to fight the release of their identity is through a Motion to Quash (i.e., a motion to cancel the subpoena). Although Motions to Quash in Florida state court can be successful, Strike 3 will often pursue the case in Federal court, meaning a Motion to Quash may not end the case.
If you’re considering a Motion to Quash, please contact me. I’ve defended over 1,000 people against plaintiffs like Strike 3 Holdings and have significant experience with Motions to Quash. I can help explain when they can be helpful, and when they could be potentially harmful.
This Plaintiff is notoriously aggressive, and sees each infringement as worth at least $750 in statutory copyright damages. Strike 3 Holdings cases, if lost in court, could easily cost $10,000s, or even $100,000s.
The Plaintiff is often willing to settle for less or even dismiss the case when a defendant has an adequate defense. That’s why it’s so important to contact an experienced attorney right away. I can provide valuable information based on my years of experience fighting Strike 3.
I’m happy to explain to you your options for defense and recommend the best way forward for your situation. I’ve represented more than 1,000 people across the country, and I focus my practice on defending against BitTorrent-based lawsuits. I’m very familiar with this Plaintiff and can give you individualized guidance for your case.
I have years of experience defending file-sharing lawsuits and can help you achieve the best outcome possible. I have defeated several copyright plaintiffs in lawsuits around the U.S.; I also fought Malibu Media (i.e., the Plaintiff Strike 3 Holdings based their strategy on) in their first trial. I’ve represented over 1,000 defendants in both settling and litigating file-sharing lawsuits. I’ve written a subpoena defense guide for your information, as well. I’m happy to represent clients for both negotiating a settlement and fighting the case in court.
I understand most people haven’t prepared for large, unexpected legal expenses and strive to respect clients’ time and money. I offer flat fees for negotiating settlements to give my clients certainty. I’ve also represented lower income clients both in negotiations and in court, and will do my best to work within your means. I’m happy to speak with you to help advise you on what strategy is best in your situation.
I look forward to speaking with you and helping you put this matter behind you.