AT&T

November 29, 2020 by Leonard J. French

5 New Federal Strike 3 Holdings Cases in New Jersey

Strike 3 Holdings has filed 5 new Federal copyright lawsuits in New Jersey in one day! Typically, this would be a daunting task for a Plaintiff, but Strike 3 isn’t typical. They’re one of the most prolific copyright Plaintiffs in the country. Each lawsuit is nearly identical, alleging that their investigators observed an IP address downloading Vixen, Tushy, or Blacked films through BitTorrent networks. They accuse the internet subscriber associated with the IP address as being the copyright infringer, and subpoena the Internet Service Provider (e.g., AT&T, Comcast, Cox, Spectrum, Optimum Online, RCN, Verizon, etc.) for the subscriber’s identity.

The argument that the person that pays the internet bill must also be the copyright infringer is weak. Other people may have had access to the internet connection, including guests, other family members, and unauthorized users. Yet, this barebones accusation is usually enough for Federal judges. Strike 3 Holdings has weaponized the copyright act to try to extract the largest settlements they can from internet subscribers, and they are notoriously aggressive.

That’s because this Plaintiff sees each infringement as worth at least $750 in statutory copyright damages, which they often ask to treble to $2,250 for what they see as “willful infringement”. Strike 3 Holdings cases, if lost in court, could easily cost $10,000s, or even $100,000s. The Plaintiff also targets wealthier neighborhoods, hoping to ensnare people who can secure substantial settlements. However, 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 with Strike 3, help develop the best defense strategy for your situation, and help you reach a resolution.

Many people discover the lawsuit after they receive a notice from their ISP, which advises them that the only way to fight the subpoena is through a Motion to Quash (i.e., a motion to cancel the subpoena). In fact, many of these cases started out in county court in Miami-Dade, Florida, where people have been dismissed from their case after filing a Motion to Quash. However, Motions to Quash in Federal cases are not as simple, as Strike 3 usually files in the correct jurisdiction, leaving fewer arguments against the subpoena.

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. I work with a team of lawyers from across the country to provide the best defense, regardless of the state you live in.

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.

November 28, 2020 by Leonard J. French

Strike 3 Holdings Files 25 New Copyright Cases in California in One Day!

Strike 3 Holdings has filed 25 new Federal copyright lawsuits in California in one day! Typically, this would be a daunting task for a Plaintiff, but Strike 3 is not typical. They’re one of the most prolific copyright Plaintiffs in the country. Each lawsuit is nearly identical, alleging that their investigators observed an IP address downloading Vixen, Tushy, or Blacked films through BitTorrent networks. They then accuse the internet subscriber associated with the IP address as being the copyright infringer and subpoena the Internet Service Provider (e.g., AT&T, Comcast, Cox, Spectrum, Verizon, etc.) for the subscriber’s identity.

The argument that the person that pays the internet bill must also be the copyright infringer is weak. Other people may have had access to the internet connection, including guests, other family members, and unauthorized users. Yet, the barebones accusation that the subscriber is responsible is often enough for Federal judges. Strike 3 Holdings has weaponized this process to try to extract the largest settlements they can from internet subscribers, and they are notoriously aggressive.

Many people discover the lawsuit after they receive a notice from their ISP, which advises them that the only way to fight the subpoena is through a Motion to Quash (i.e., a motion to cancel or “quash” the subpoena). In fact, many of these cases started out in county court in Miami-Dade, Florida, where people have had success in being dismissed from their case after filing a Motion to Quash. However, Motions to Quash in Federal cases are not as simple, as Strike 3 usually files in the correct jurisdiction, leaving fewer arguments against the subpoena.

If you’ve received a notice from your internet service provider, please contact me. I can explain 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.

November 26, 2020 by Leonard J. French

Strike 3 Holdings Files 8 New Cases in California

Strike 3 Holdings has filed 18 new Federal copyright lawsuits in California in less than a week. Normally, this would be daunting, but this is normal for Strike 3, one of the most prolific copyright Plaintiffs in the country. Each lawsuit is nearly identical, alleging that their investigators observed an IP address downloading Vixen, Tushy, or Blacked films through BitTorrent networks. They then accuse the internet subscriber associated with the IP address as being the copyright infringer and subpoena the Internet Service Provider (e.g., AT&T, Comcast, Cox, Spectrum, Verizon, etc.) for the subscriber’s identity.

The argument that the person that pays the internet bill must also be the copyright infringer is weak. Other people may have had access to the internet connection, including guests, other family members, and unauthorized users. Yet, the barebones accusation that the subscriber is responsible is often enough for Federal judges. Strike 3 Holdings has weaponized this process to try to extract the largest settlements they can from internet subscribers, and they are notoriously aggressive.

The Plaintiff sees each infringement as worth at least $750 in statutory copyright damages, which they often ask to treble to $2,250 for what they see as “willful infringement”. Strike 3 Holdings cases, if lost in court, could easily cost $10,000s, or even $100,000s. However, 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.

Many people discover the lawsuit after they receive a notice from their ISP, which advises them that the only way to fight the subpoena is through a Motion to Quash (i.e., a motion to cancel or “quash” the subpoena). In fact, many of these cases started out in county court in Miami-Dade, Florida, where people have had success in being dismissed from their case after filing a Motion to Quash. However, Motions to Quash in Federal cases are not as simple, as Strike 3 usually files in the correct jurisdiction, leaving fewer arguments against the subpoena.

November 25, 2020 by Leonard J. French

Strike 3 Holdings Files 18 New Federal Lawsuits Across the Country

Strike 3 Holdings, one of the most prolific copyright Plaintiffs in the country, has filed 18 new Federal copyright lawsuits in Illinois (4 cases), Michigan (2 cases), New York (11 cases), and Pennsylvania (1 case), in only a matter of days. Each lawsuit is nearly identical, alleging that their investigators observed an IP address downloading Vixen, Tushy, or Blacked films through BitTorrent networks. They then allege that the internet subscriber associated with the IP address must be the alleged John Doe infringer. They then request a subpoena for subscriber’s identity from the Internet Service Provider (e.g., AT&T, Comcast, Cox, Spectrum, Verizon, etc.).

The argument that the person that pays the internet bill must also be the copyright infringer is weak, as other people may have had access to the internet connection (for example). Yet, the barebones accusation that the subscriber is responsible is usually enough for Federal judges to grant the subpoena. Strike 3 Holdings has weaponized this process to try to extract the largest settlements they can from internet subscribers and they are notoriously aggressive.

Many people discover the lawsuit after they receive a notice from their ISP, which advises them that the only way to fight the subpoena is through a Motion to Quash (i.e., a motion to cancel or “quash” the subpoena). In fact, many of these cases started out in county court in Miami-Dade, Florida, where people have had success in being dismissed from their case after filing a Motion to Quash. However, Motions to Quash in Federal cases are not as simple, as Strike 3 usually files in the correct jurisdiction, leaving fewer arguments against the subpoena.

November 24, 2020 by Leonard J. French

Strike 3 Holdings Files 23 Cases in Virginia in a Single Day

Strike 3 Holdings, one of the most prolific copyright Plaintiffs in the country, has filed 24 new Federal copyright lawsuits in Virginia, 23 of which were filed on the same day. For any other Plaintiff, this would be a substantial undertaking, but this is normal for Strike 3 Holdings. Each lawsuit is nearly identical, alleging that their investigators observed an IP address committing copyright infringement by downloading Vixen, Tushy, or Blacked films through BitTorrent networks. They then allege that the John Doe internet subscriber behind the IP address must be the alleged infringer, and subpoena the identity from the Internet Service Provider (e.g., AT&T, Comcast, Cox, Spectrum, Verizon, etc.). Virginia is a favorite target for Strike 3, as they often target the cities with a higher than average income, hoping to secure large settlements.

The argument that the person that pays the internet bill must also be the copyright infringer is weak. For example, other people may have had access to the internet through unsecured wifi routers. Yet, the barebones accusation that the subscriber is responsible is usually enough for Federal judges to grant the subpoena. Strike 3 Holdings has weaponized this process to try to extract the largest settlements they can from internet subscribers.

Many people discover the lawsuit after they receive a notice from their ISP, which advises them that the only way to fight the subpoena is through a Motion to Quash (i.e., a motion to cancel or “quash” the subpoena). In fact, many of these cases started out in county court in Miami-Dade, Florida, where people have had success in being dismissed after filing a Motion to Quash. However, Motions to Quash in Federal cases are more complicated, as Strike 3 usually files in the correct jurisdiction, leaving fewer arguments against the subpoena.

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. I work with a legal team from across the country to provide the best defense, regardless of the state you live in.

Strike 3 Holdings is notoriously aggressive in pursuing each case, and each allegation is serious. The Plaintiff sees each infringement as worth at least $750, which they often ask to treble to $2,250 for what they see as “willful infringement”. Strike 3 Holdings cases, if lost in court, could easily cost $10,000s, or even $100,000s. However, the Plaintiff is often willing to settle for less or even dismiss the case when a defendant has an adequate defense. This is why it’s so important to contact an experienced attorney right away.

May 14, 2020 by Leonard J. French

Strike 3 Holdings Puts Pressure on Internet Subscribers by Filing Federal Lawsuits in Across the Country

As previously described, Strike 3 Holdings has filed requests for hundreds upon hundreds of internet subscribers’ identities based on bare bones allegations that their investigators observed IP addresses downloading Vixen, Tushy, or Blacked branded films through BitTorrent networks. They do this through a ‘Pure Bill of Discovery’ in Miami-Dade county court where the only relief they ask for is a subpoena for the internet subscriber’s identity. This is flawed for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that Miami-Dade county court has no jurisdiction over copyright matters and most of the internet subscribers are not in Florida.

Many defendants have fought the improper subpoenas by filing Motions to Quash (a request for the court to cancel the subpoena) and are successful at first, as Strike 3 will drop the Defendant from that case. However, this may not be the end. Strike 3 Holdings has filed more than 80 Federal cases this year. Most cases have been filed in California (38 cases) and Florida (15 cases). Additional cases have been filed in New York (10 cases), Illinois (9 cases), New Jersey (6 cases), Michigan (3 cases), Nevada (3 cases), Connecticut (2 cases), and Virginia (1 case). Approximately half of these cases include a request for a subpoena to get the subscriber’s identity from their Internet Service Provider.

Since in half the cases Strike 3 already has the Defendant’s identity, this means this Plaintiff is aggressive whether defendants fight with a motion to quash or not.

Notably, Strike 3 is usually successful in receiving a second subpoena from Federal courts. However, there are some districts in which they have been denied. If you have received a notice from your ISP that Strike 3 has subpoenaed your identity or has filed a Federal lawsuit against you, please don’t hesitate to contact us. We can explain what the case means, your options for defense, and what we recommend in your situation. We focus on exactly this type of litigation and have defended people across the country. Please be ready with your case number and IP address associated with your case.

These cases are serious. Statutory copyright infringement damages are often calculated at $2,250 per infringement. We have experience defending against these new tactics and will be able to help explain what the case means, your options for defense, and recommend the best path forward for you.

AT&T

Footer