Last Updated on September 6, 2026 by Rob Cashman
Received a subpoena from Strike 3 Holdings LLC from your Internet Service Provider (ISP)? Did the subpoena notice make you think you are a defendant in a Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit?
Strike 3 Holdings Defendants: YOU DO NOT NEED TO SETTLE WITH STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS !!
Keep reading to learn “Just The Facts” about Strike 3 Holdings subpoenas without ‘sales tactics’, ‘pressure’, or ‘inaccurate’ information you will find in ‘other sites’ that pay Google for you to click on their site.
I wrote this article to give “Just The Facts” about Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits. Here, I will briefly give you a walkthrough of the ISP Subpoena Letter that you received in the mail.
You will learn whether to respond with a motion to quash, or whether there are better strategies available to you through your attorney. We will discuss:
- “No Settlement” Letters,
- Settlement Negotiations,
- “Anonymous Settlements,”
…along with a bunch of other strategies you might not yet be aware of.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.
▶
Watch our Full Video Walkthrough of “Strike 3 Holdings Subpoena Lawsuits… Decoded” on YouTube for an easy 5-minute explanation.
QUESTION: In a Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit, should a John Doe (subscriber assigned IP Address …) bittorrent defendant:
1) IGNORE the subpoena from Strike 3 Holdings
2) SETTLE with Strike 3 Holdings LLC or,
3) hire an infringement defense firm to file a response to the subpoena (ask the defense law firm to file a motion to quash the Strike 3 cases against you) and proceed with LITIGATION to defend against the many movies (Tushy, Blacked Raw brands, etc.) claimed against you?
ANSWER #1: The Strike 3 Holdings Ignore Approach is a viable subpoena defense strategy.
ANSWER #2: A Strike 3 Holdings SETTLEMENT is also a viable strategy.
ANSWER #3: It is often a viable strategy to defend the claims in litigation (if you did not do the downloads).
JUST WALK ME THROUGH THIS.
WALKTHROUGH (JOHN DOE): I WAS CAUGHT DOWNLOADING ADULT FILMS. WHAT IS THE EASIEST WAY TO UNDERSTAND THE ISP SUBPOENA NOTIFICATION LETTER THAT I RECEIVED? WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS ON HOW TO PROCEED?
WALKTHROUGH (SERVED): I WAS JUST NAMED AND SERVED AS A DEFENDANT (RECEIVED A SUMMONS). WHAT DO I DO AND HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO RESPOND?
WHO IS THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER:
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC
WHAT MOVIES ARE THEY ALLEGING WERE COPIED IN THE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT?:
They are suing for the unlawful download or streaming of adult movie titles produced under various adult film brands.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.
WHAT SETTLEMENT AMOUNT DO THEY ASK FOR?
In the John Doe phase of Strike 3 Holdings subpoena lawsuits, the ask for settlement amounts ranging from $600/title – $750/title, but an attorney can often negotiate significantly lower settlement numbers based on “hardship,” or based on how much a defendant can afford to pay.
10-2024 UPDATE Once a defendant has been NAMED AND SERVED, as of August, 2024, Strike 3 Holdings subpoena lawsuits now ask for $2,000/title (instead of $750/title).
I asked them why they are asking for such a high amount, and they responded that I can inform my clients that,
‘This is a federal lawsuit. We file thousands of lawsuits — Strike 3 cases throughout the US –and these types of cases cost money. You received the subpoena notice from your ISP letting you know you were involved in a Strike 3 lawsuit against an IP address associated with your account, and that your ISP would provide your personal information to Strike 3 Holdings on a certain date. You could have decided to consult with an attorney to pay Strike 3 Holdings when you first received noticed from your internet provider that a federal copyright lawsuit was filed against you. But you ignored the notice of the subpoena and you did not call us to settle the case, and so now you must pay our increased settlement demand (e.g. the $2,000/title settlement payment or you can forego the settlement process and try to dismiss the case in litigation. Consult with your attorney and get legal advice on which way you would like to go.’ [Emphasis added, and for clarity, this was what I was told — it is not a direct quote.]
Strike 3 Holdings LLC wants one lump-sum payment for the unlawful download or streaming of their copyrighted works (one payment for all of the adult films they believe your John Doe entity downloaded).
They calculate how much they initially ask for based on how many titles they believe were downloaded. They get the number of titles from their “EXHIBIT A” attachment to the complaint. Then, they multiple the number of titles by an arbitrary “per title” settlement amount.
They begin asking for $750/title x the number of titles in the EXHIBIT A. The actual amount you pay ends up being:
1) as high as they could negotiate, and
2) as low as we can negotiate.
There are strategies based on timing and leverage to minimize the amount that our clients pay.
These cases claim that the accused account holder illegally downloaded and streamed pornographic films belonging to their company. As a result, they want their name and address “so that they could determine if this person is the so-called infringer.”
AFTER SENDING THE SUBPOENA, HOW FAR ARE THEY WILLING TO GO IN THE LITIGATION PROCESS?
How far they are willing to go depends on in which jurisdiction the case is filed in. It also depends on:
- the proclivities of the plaintiff attorney/local counsel,
- whether he/she is willing to name and serve each defendant, and
- whether he/she is willing or able to conduct discovery.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.
HOW ARE THEY SUING DEFENDANTS ANONYMOUSLY (E.G., AS PUBLIC IP ADDRESSES)?
They file a copyright infringement lawsuit. The filing is against one unknown “John Doe” defendant. They tracked that defendant over the course of months or years before the case was filed.
The judge allows them to send a subpoena to the accused defendant’s ISP (e.g., Comcast). This forces the ISP to provide them the account holder’s contact information (and other relevant information).
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT DEFENSE STRATEGIES IN RESPONSE TO RECEIVING A STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS SUBPOENA:
1) Have a copyright defense law firm file an answer with the court; ask for attorney fees.
Have an attorney defend the claims in litigation (result: attorney fees, not refundable; eventual dismissal).
2) Settle by paying them an amount the accused defendant can afford to pay.
Have an attorney negotiate a settlement covering all past claims of infringement for the adult titles allegedly downloaded.
The amount to be paid will be based on the profile of the downloader.
They create the downloader’s profile by combining the following factors:
- demographic information,
- income, and
- social network information.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.
The ability to pay is also a relevant factor in determining the settlement price.
Whether the complete download actually happened (or whether the movie was partially streamed) is also a relevant factor in considering what the amount the defendant ends up paying.
Most importantly, the settlement amount will take into consideration what other titles he has downloaded. What other videos he has seen is also relevant (and whether the producers of those videos are clients of the plaintiff attorney*).
*Just in case you didn’t catch that, I’ll say it again. Too often, these plaintiff attorneys look at what OTHER videos you downloaded. For example, you can look at your history on https://www.iknowwhatyoudownload.com.
My issue with attorneys who do this is:
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.
3) Have an attorney act as a buffer between yourself and the plaintiff attorney.
In these bittorrent based filings, this is often called the “ignore” route because negotiating a settlement is not the intended outcome.
– FOR A DEFENDANT WHO DID NOT DOWNLOAD OR STREAM THE MOVIE: The goal of the “ignore” route is to keep an open line of communication with the plaintiff attorney. We would want to convince him/her that the accused John Doe defendant is not the person the attorney is looking for — that he did not download or stream the movie titles, and that he is not interested in paying a settlement.
– FOR A DEFENDANT WHO DID DOWNLOAD OR STREAM THE MOVIE: The goal of the “ignore” route is to create a buffer zone between the plaintiff attorney and the accused John Doe defendant.
The goal is to stop the plaintiff attorney from having any communication with the defendant. Our goal would be to stop them from sending correspondences and demand letters to our client. Instead, we would funnel all communications through the office of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC.
Throughout our representation of you, we would monitor your case for changes that affect your John Doe entity. And, we would be your eyes and ears, understanding every event that occurs on the case docket, and what the relevance, risk, and each potential outcome is of each event that occurs.
The intended outcome is for the plaintiff’s lawyer to decide to name and serve other defendants (this does happen). However, should we decide there is a “high risk” of being named and served, I would then suggest that we settle the claims before being named and served.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.
4) Have an attorney draft a “no settlement letter” on your behalf.
A “no settlement letter” informs the plaintiff attorney that:
- nobody in the family watched or downloaded the movie, and
- no amount will be paid to them, period.
NOTE: A “no settlement letter” is a discounted means of informing the plaintiff attorney that no payment will be made. We leave the choice to them to either name and serve the defendant or leave him be. Because this is a discounted “barebones” strategy, no further communication is made with the plaintiff attorney after the initial letter.
OTHER STRATEGIES (NOT SUGGESTED):
[These are strategies that a “defense law firm” or a “legal defense” attorney (a.k.a., a settlement factory) will ‘sell’ to defendants. They sell these using the term “copyright infringement defense” in their ads.
As soon as the accused defendant receives a subpoena from the ISP, they are informed that they are a potential defendant. The copyright holders filed this case to “protect” a copyright that they allegedly stole. The subpoena letter almost always suggests that the defendant can file a Motion with the court to Quash or oppose the release of the account holder’s contact information with the court.
Then, when this strategy fails (publicly), the owner of the internet account is given the news that he must settle. If he does not, Strike 3 will name and serve him as a defendant [now that they know who he is from his Motion to Quash].
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.
In short, the so-called torrent defense attorney sold them a faulty product (the motion to quash), and then their client was told that they have to settle, “or else.” This explains why this so-called defense attorney claims to have settled so many cases on their websites (some advertise that they have settled thousands or tens-of-thousands of them).
[For that client, he was sold one faulty and outdated legal strategy after another (and should probably consider that it might have been malpractice for that lawyer to sell him services they knew would only hurt him).]
[I have also written about these cases on reddit. I have also explained the issues in my “policy letter to lawmakers and judges.” In that letter, I explain that the legal system is broken because there is an “uneven playing field” between the plaintiff and the defendants he sues. Because the plaintiffs are given an unfair advantage over defendants in these cases, the defendants are unable or ill equipped to defend themselves.]
5) (not recommended) File an “opposition with the court” to quash the subpoena.
Motion to Quash the Subpoena: Again, see this article to understand why I do not recommend this method. In short:
- the plaintiff will claim the accused defendant is not yet a defendant (no “standing”), and
- even if the defendant succeeds in filing the motion, the plaintiff attorney can easily re-file in his home state.
6) “Anonymous Settlements“: See this article to understand why I do not recommend this method. Settling anonymously sounds good to an accused downloader. The problem is that it gives the settlement factory attorney a way to use a “boilerplate” release of liability.
An anonymous settlement does not protect you against the next lawsuit. This is because the agreement limits the scope of the agreement to the titles that ‘this Anonymous John Doe entity’ downloaded ‘with this IP address, in this particular filing’. Strike 3’s attorneys also play semantics – a “subscriber assigned IP address A” in filing #1 is not the same ‘person’ as a “subscriber assigned IP B” in filing #2.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.
SUMMARY: OVERVIEW OF STRIKE 3 LAWSUITS IN A NUTSHELL:
Strike 3 Holdings LLC’s lawyers have been filing cases all over the country. While each Strike 3 Holdings case looks almost identical, each case is different as far as the number of titles the accused defendant downloaded.
If you find yourself as a defendant in a Strike 3 Holdings’ case, chances are you’ve been accused of downloading Strike 3 Holdings’ adult film content without permission.
The ISP letter that you received suggests that you can file an opposition with the court to stop them from being able to release your name to Strike 3 Holdings, but should you?
It’s important to have a skilled lawyer who can represent you in your Strike 3 lawsuit. This is not only to help you understand analyze your own circumstances (which would affect our approach), but also to advise you on whether to ignore your subpoena and let them share your contact information with the plaintiff’s attorney.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.
There are other ISP subpoena defense strategies as well, but be cautious of these strategies:
WHAT STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC LAWSUIT STRATEGIES SHOULD WE AVOID? SHOULD WE FILE A MOTION TO QUASH?
NO. Even though the ISP letter that you received suggested that you contest the subpoena by filing a “motion to quash.” This is a mistake.
Filing this motion will not cause their attorneys to drop the case. Instead, you will introduce additional steps to the legal process which will provide the attorney who sold you these services many additional billable hours, and this will cost you money that you could have saved. Even if you win, they will just re-file in your own federal district (they should not be filing in a state court, but they have in the past with their Miami-Dade lawsuits in Florida).
SHOULD A JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS SETTLE WITH STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC?
There are clear reasons WHY [as an accused defendant] you might decide to settle the claims against you.
There are also clear reasons WHY NOT to settle.
I outlined these reasons in the the following article about Strike 3 Holdings settlement costs and considerations.
Knowing when to settle (and when NOT to settle) is based on an unemotional analysis of RISK.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.
I don’t need to say this, but it is always smart to have an attorney negotiate on your behalf to get a settlement that is 1) reasonably priced, and 2) which properly releases you and your family from liability (not only for this lawsuit, but for any other lawsuits in the queue you might not yet be aware of).
VOLUME-BASED ATTORNEYS / “SETTLEMENT FACTORIES”
As I said — there are some clear reasons WHY NOT to settle. However, some attorneys do not tell you these reasons.
BEWARE – ‘settlement factory’ attorneys might convince you to pay a settlement regardless of whether or not you were actually downloading Strike 3 Holdings’ content. They also use fear tactics and pressure, suggesting that you settle and remain anonymous. An anonymous settlement is also a mistake.
In my opinion — just so it is said –, if you did not do the downloading, you should not be paying a settlement.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHEN IT IS DONE CORRECTLY:
The terms of a settlement agreement should cover all alleged downloads that happened prior to your settlement. It should also make clear that Strike 3 Holdings, LLC owns the copyrights to the movies allegedly downloaded, and that there are no other parties who ‘also own’ the titles you are paying for (so that you are not sued again by someone else for the same titles you just paid for).
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.
If you are considering a settlement, then there are a few things you should know:
The settlement amount varies based on the number of titles that are associated with your IP address [according to the documents Strike 3 Holdings filed, this identified the Doe Defendant, and thus their lawsuits are usually against the ISP subscriber assigned the IP address whom they claim is the infringer.]
The actual amount you end up paying should be significantly less than the original amount demanded in a negotiation.
The confidentiality clause is extremely important, especially if your name is going to be on the settlement agreement.
Your copyright infringement defense attorney should already know the loopholes in their ‘boilerplate’ settlement agreement, and he/she must be prepared to negotiate and demand that they change the terms of the agreement to protect your rights. The last thing that you want after going through this entire process is to go through it again with another “Strike 3 Holdings, LLC” lawsuit because they sued you again, but as a different “John Doe” entity having a different IP address.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.
ESSENTIAL ARTICLES:
In response to many people asking me about how much settlements cost in cases like these, and what the process is, I wrote the following comprehensive article:
CONTACT AN ATTORNEY:
CLICK HERE for our “CONTACT US” page.
SCENARIO 1: IF YOU HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, COMMENT, OR NEED A QUICK RESPONSE:
SCENARIO 2: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT YOUR CASE AND YOUR OPTIONS, SET UP A PHONE CONSULTATION:
[simplybook_widget]
FAQ SECTION:
What options do I have when sued as a John Doe defendant, and what are the potential consequences of each option?
When sued as a John Doe defendant, the three options are to 1) file an opposition with the court to quash the subpoena (
here is why it is actually better NOT to file one of these), 2) settle the claims against you (this costs a lot of money; if you did not do the download, then there is NO reason to settle), or 3) fight the claims in court through litigation (this is the best strategy if you did not do the downloads).
How does Strike 3 Holdings, LLC choose their local counsel, and how are they divided by territories?
In which courts does Strike 3 Holdings, LLC file their lawsuits?
They file their cases in U.S. District Courts across the US.
However, in 2019, they exploited Florida’s Bill of Discovery laws and used the Miami-Dade Florida county court to expose the identity of thousands of accused defendants.
What are the reasons why they are suing these particular John Doe defendants?
They are suing John Doe defendants for the unlawful download or unlawful streaming of their adult movie titles.
They are suing John Doe defendants for copyright infringement so that they can obtain large settlements from each accused defendant. This strategy is far more profitable for Strike 3 Holdings, LLC than having each of these defendants purchase a paid subscription to their websites.
What is Strike 3 Holdings, LLC seeking from defendants in each of their cases?
They want one lump sum payment for the unlawful download or streaming of their copyrighted adult movie titles produced under their adult brands.
What factors determine how far they are willing to go?
How far
they are willing to go depends on the following factors:
1) which court the case is filed in,
2) the proclivities of the plaintiff attorney, and whether he is willing to name and serve each defendant, and
3) whether their local counsel is willing or even able to conduct discovery to determine whether the accused defendant actually downloaded their copyrighted videos.
What is the process that they use to identify defendants?
They sue defendants by filing a copyright infringement case in a U.S. District Court. The case is filed against one unknown “John Doe” defendant accused of using one IP address.
They ask the court to issue a subpoena to the internet service provider so that they can identify to them which internet user was assigned that particular IP address on the date and time when the alleged download happened.
They then use the subscriber contact information to determine whether they will try to solicit a payment from that accused downloader (in the form of a wire transfer payment), or whether they will pursue that defendant in litigation.
Their cases almost never go to trial, but they end after the discovery phase with either a dismissal or a settlement.
Do they wait before filing anything against defendants, or do they file immediately upon discovery?
They wait.
They track the defendant for months or years before they file anything in the courts.
By waiting many months, they track the IP addresses of the accused defendant and gather many instances of infringement before they file their lawsuit. This allows them to ask for a large lump sum payment for the unlawful download of many of their titles.
How do they obtain the identity of the “ISP subscribers” they accuse?
To obtain the identity of accused defendants,
they file a lawsuit in federal court and then request that the court issue a subpoena to the defendant’s internet service provider (ISP). The subpoena compels the ISP to disclose the defendant’s contact and other relevant information to their attorneys (not to the court).
The ISP account holder learns about their involvement in the case when they receive a subpoena on Comcast letterhead. The Comcast ISP subpoena letter provides them with an opportunity to object to the disclosure of their information. This can be done by filing an opposition with the court.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.
—
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Again, if you have been implicated as a John Doe defendant in a lawsuit, 1. and 2. (below) are the TWO (2) main articles you should read immediately:
- “ISP Subpoena Notification Received – WALKTHROUGH.”
- “JUST THE FACTS.”
- “Everything You Need To Know in One Page About Your Lawsuit [FAQ]”
- “In-Depth. Their Lawsuits, Their Strategies, and Their Settlements”
FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your lawsuit, click here. Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at info[at] cashmanlawfirm.com, or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.
CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.
NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form. The attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me. However, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together. That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or in any e-mail.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.
List of Recent Federal Court Filings by State (UPDATED as of May 20th, 2026)
Here is a list of recent filings in the Federal Courts for each state:
California
California Strike 3 Holdings subpoena lawsuits are run by Lincoln Bandlow of Bandlow Law.
Lincoln Bandlow used to work for Fox Rothschild, LLP, where he ran all of the attorneys and their cases across the US. But since the shake-up in May, 2019, he left Fox Rothschild, LLP and started his own law firm.
I still think that Lincoln is behind the scenes running each of the cases filed across the US, but I no longer think he has sole authority and decision-making power. I believe that John Atkin (NJ) and Jackie James (NY/CT) also have similar power and authority.
Below are the recently filed California cases:
CALIFORNIA CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the California Central District Court
104.173.7.159 2:26-cv-04636
104.174.67.86 2:26-cv-04635
104.181.137.170 2:26-cv-04602
104.32.183.224 2:26-cv-04683
107.201.143.113 2:26-cv-04689
107.212.215.137 2:26-cv-04641
108.219.212.142 2:26-cv-04595
108.224.121.104 8:26-cv-01031
162.195.123.130 2:26-cv-04626
172.114.104.87 2:26-cv-04687
172.115.148.156 2:26-cv-04690
172.115.20.78 2:26-cv-04691
172.119.229.36 2:26-cv-04685
172.91.129.20 2:26-cv-04688
172.91.173.45 2:26-cv-04637
198.72.174.204 2:26-cv-04633
209.215.141.210 2:26-cv-04686
23.114.171.132 2:26-cv-04598
23.125.221.62 2:26-cv-04627
38.42.52.149 2:26-cv-04599
45.19.166.146 2:26-cv-04639
45.48.234.58 2:26-cv-04597
47.143.42.38 2:26-cv-04600
47.144.164.52 2:26-cv-04606
47.145.215.167 5:26-cv-02277
47.149.209.140 8:26-cv-01034
47.149.218.234 8:26-cv-01032
47.149.76.155 5:26-cv-02276
47.156.139.185 2:26-cv-04604
47.177.63.229 2:26-cv-04628
47.177.7.117 8:26-cv-01036
71.84.58.150 2:26-cv-04625
76.174.114.107 2:26-cv-04640
97.217.249.103 2:26-cv-04634
97.218.240.82 8:26-cv-01035
98.148.39.118 2:26-cv-04632
99.10.74.88 2:26-cv-04629
99.111.168.215 5:26-cv-02279
99.128.23.241 2:26-cv-04631
99.129.217.217 2:26-cv-04605
99.50.84.249 2:26-cv-04594
99.97.161.119 2:26-cv-04684
Filed in the California Eastern District Court
104.220.160.252 2:26-at-00677
104.220.160.252 2:26-cv-01610
104.49.218.175 2:26-at-00678
104.49.218.175 2:26-cv-01611
107.206.169.178 2:26-at-00675
107.206.169.178 2:26-cv-01608
24.7.183.86 2:26-at-00674
24.7.183.86 2:26-cv-01607
67.181.54.102 2:26-at-00673
67.181.54.102 2:26-cv-01606
76.223.248.142 2:26-at-00676
76.223.248.142 2:26-cv-01609
Filed in the California Northern District Court
104.13.63.208 3:26-cv-03485
107.133.145.92 3:26-cv-03486
107.139.35.79 3:26-cv-03473
108.225.132.173 4:26-cv-03471
134.16.45.238 3:26-cv-03487
172.9.232.173 3:26-cv-02888
172.9.233.52 3:26-cv-02887
24.4.75.228 3:26-cv-03484
45.28.142.34 3:26-cv-02885
67.180.179.205 3:26-cv-03489
73.15.128.164 3:26-cv-03488
73.162.207.68 3:26-cv-03479
73.202.200.166 3:26-cv-03470
73.202.200.166 4:26-cv-03470
73.223.230.173 3:26-cv-02886
73.223.230.173 5:26-cv-02886
73.63.163.22 3:26-cv-03483
73.70.144.230 3:26-cv-03480
73.71.94.136 3:26-cv-03474
76.198.30.247 5:26-cv-02884
98.35.4.152 3:26-cv-03490
98.42.178.9 3:26-cv-03481
98.45.170.100 4:26-cv-03491
98.45.170.100 5:26-cv-03491
99.67.16.122 3:26-cv-03482
99.92.211.9 3:26-cv-03472
Filed in the California Southern District Court
3:26-cv-02087
3:26-cv-02088
3:26-cv-02576
3:26-cv-02583
3:26-cv-02585
3:26-cv-02588
3:26-cv-02582
107.217.220.200 3:26-cv-02086
172.116.114.57 3:26-cv-02097
*OLDER* CALIFORNIA CASES (9/2025-12/2025)
In the Central District of California:
104.172.54.111 2:25-cv-11303
104.175.235.168 2:25-cv-11305
104.33.84.68 2:25-cv-11297
104.34.254.3 2:25-cv-11306
23.241.174.183 5:25-cv-03167
24.160.61.129 8:25-cv-02638
24.205.93.185 2:25-cv-11301
38.15.214.203 2:25-cv-11293
47.146.168.174 8:25-cv-02637
47.150.28.161 5:25-cv-03169
47.153.119.50 5:25-cv-03168
66.75.3.50 2:25-cv-11300
76.174.41.214 2:25-cv-11302
76.175.33.66 8:25-cv-02639
76.176.169.234 2:25-cv-11294
76.50.130.145 2:25-cv-11296
76.87.34.254 2:25-cv-11307
76.90.46.140 2:25-cv-11298
96.41.29.247 2:25-cv-11299
104.173.0.189 2:25-cv-11174
104.33.117.248 2:25-cv-11146
104.35.161.7 2:25-cv-11171
137.25.32.132 2:25-cv-11173
172.115.210.180 2:25-cv-11175
45.48.247.83 2:25-cv-11172
47.144.161.106 2:25-cv-11169
47.146.32.245 2:25-cv-11144
47.149.138.154 2:25-cv-11165
47.153.49.141 2:25-cv-11150
47.156.226.223 2:25-cv-11149
47.179.11.98 2:25-cv-11147
66.214.173.52 2:25-cv-11168
67.150.56.101 2:25-cv-11143
73.162.177.10 2:25-cv-11145
76.170.165.114 2:25-cv-11148
76.171.136.189 2:25-cv-11170
76.32.236.145 2:25-cv-11167
76.90.28.117 2:25-cv-11151
172.251.134.19 5:25-cv-02684
47.149.86.143 5:25-cv-02686
47.150.219.187 8:25-cv-02300
47.151.248.77 5:25-cv-02687
47.152.88.98 5:25-cv-02685
47.157.252.36 8:25-cv-02303
75.82.215.110 8:25-cv-02302
76.91.74.153 8:25-cv-02301
172.249.177.70 2:25-cv-09708
172.91.71.229 2:25-cv-09709
38.42.46.76 2:25-cv-09710
47.153.123.40 5:25-cv-02683
47.28.79.15 2:25-cv-09711
76.168.118.130 2:25-cv-09763
76.170.65.185 2:25-cv-09764
76.176.17.50 2:25-cv-09712
172.91.165.232 2:25-cv-09691
23.242.95.179 2:25-cv-09690
75.82.184.164 2:25-cv-09692
76.88.45.172 2:25-cv-09694
98.148.66.35 2:25-cv-09695
98.35.3.149 2:25-cv-09693
104.172.37.76 2:25-cv-09601
155.186.66.166 2:25-cv-09644
172.118.145.208 2:25-cv-09600
172.249.69.45 2:25-cv-09603
172.250.30.52 2:25-cv-09647
47.148.108.195 2:25-cv-09645
47.157.227.72 2:25-cv-09646
71.9.112.133 2:25-cv-09604
75.84.21.35 2:25-cv-09643
76.50.56.29 2:25-cv-09605
137.25.35.30 2:25-cv-09588
38.13.26.90 2:25-cv-09585
47.144.180.71 2:25-cv-09590
47.144.52.169 2:25-cv-09593
47.157.101.81 2:25-cv-09594
72.134.43.206 2:25-cv-09589
75.84.20.37 2:25-cv-09586
76.169.2.193 2:25-cv-09592
76.175.114.222 2:25-cv-09591
76.32.230.147 2:25-cv-09587
172.116.6.55 2:25-cv-09532
172.118.67.224 2:25-cv-09539
172.88.17.111 2:25-cv-09529
38.42.52.228 2:25-cv-09531
47.151.172.31 2:25-cv-09536
47.41.192.88 2:25-cv-09537
76.175.112.170 2:25-cv-09535
76.33.115.5 2:25-cv-09534
76.33.172.109 2:25-cv-09533
76.87.48.94 2:25-cv-09538
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
In the Eastern District of California:
104.220.84.74 2:25-at-01660
104.220.84.74 2:25-cv-03450
24.10.4.67 2:25-at-01658
24.10.4.67 2:25-cv-03448
24.10.40.118 2:25-at-01654
24.10.40.118 2:25-cv-03443
67.181.183.192 2:25-at-01657
67.181.183.192 2:25-cv-03447
73.116.116.250 2:25-at-01655
73.116.116.250 2:25-cv-03444
73.151.1.69 2:25-at-01656
73.151.1.69 2:25-cv-03445
76.29.168.232 2:25-at-01653
76.29.168.232 2:25-cv-03440
99.118.16.179 2:25-at-01659
99.118.16.179 2:25-cv-03449
104.220.84.74 2:25-at-01660
24.10.4.67 2:25-at-01658
24.10.40.118 2:25-at-01654
67.181.183.192 2:25-at-01657
73.116.116.250 2:25-at-01655
73.151.1.69 2:25-at-01656
76.29.168.232 2:25-at-01653
99.118.16.179 2:25-at-01659
104.185.139.135 2:25-at-01809
50.120.60.161 2:25-at-01807
73.116.206.252 2:25-at-01810
73.41.24.182 2:25-at-01811
76.127.116.67 2:25-at-01808
99.130.36.113 2:25-at-01812
107.131.109.205 2:25-cv-02824
174.160.191.49 2:25-at-01307
174.160.191.49 2:25-cv-02822
23.114.36.6 2:25-cv-02823
71.135.151.15 2:25-cv-02817
73.151.115.147 2:25-at-01306
73.151.115.147 2:25-cv-02821
98.41.17.42 2:25-cv-02818
104.8.37.9 2:25-cv-02578
73.12.248.23 2:25-cv-02579
73.189.81.31 2:25-cv-02560
99.89.119.145 2:25-cv-02576
In the Northern District of California:
24.23.150.64 5:25-cv-10264
24.7.58.230 5:25-cv-10269
73.63.217.74 3:25-cv-10266
73.63.217.74 5:25-cv-10266
73.92.126.23 4:25-cv-10263
73.92.126.23 5:25-cv-10263
73.92.161.251 4:25-cv-10268
73.92.161.251 5:25-cv-10268
76.102.125.126 3:25-cv-10270
76.102.125.126 5:25-cv-10270
98.45.166.245 3:25-cv-10271
98.45.166.245 5:25-cv-10271
76.102.125.126 3:25-cv-10270
98.45.166.245 3:25-cv-10271
24.130.161.95 3:25-cv-10228
24.4.34.64 5:25-cv-10229
67.164.34.47 4:25-cv-10207
67.180.165.10 4:25-cv-10203
71.204.145.189 4:25-cv-10205
73.223.62.6 4:25-cv-10231
73.71.188.48 5:25-cv-10210
76.126.130.159 3:25-cv-10222
76.132.105.242 4:25-cv-10208
76.132.105.242 4:25-cv-10208
76.133.76.116 4:25-cv-10202
76.14.114.148 3:25-cv-10224
98.207.131.213 3:25-cv-10204
98.207.131.213 4:25-cv-10204
98.35.206.198 5:25-cv-10221
98.35.216.3 5:25-cv-10227
98.37.155.123 3:25-cv-10209
98.37.155.123 4:25-cv-10209
98.51.16.20 3:25-cv-10206
98.51.16.20 4:25-cv-10206
98.51.5.43 3:25-cv-10226
98.51.5.43 5:25-cv-10226
174.160.74.72 3:25-cv-07533
174.160.74.72 5:25-cv-07533
35.151.47.128 5:25-cv-07532
66.215.119.3 3:25-cv-07529
66.215.119.3 5:25-cv-07529
73.222.131.81 3:25-cv-07534
73.222.131.81 5:25-cv-07534
73.222.50.238 4:25-cv-07526
73.222.50.238 5:25-cv-07526
76.132.32.79 3:25-cv-07530
76.132.32.79 5:25-cv-07530
98.210.6.48 5:25-cv-07527
108.77.136.39 4:25-cv-08419
108.77.136.39 5:25-cv-08419
108.85.107.217 5:25-cv-08417
73.92.207.101 3:25-cv-08414
73.92.207.101 4:25-cv-08414
98.207.179.106 3:25-cv-08415
98.207.179.106 5:25-cv-08415
98.35.35.239 3:25-cv-08411
99.117.99.247 3:25-cv-08416
99.117.99.247 5:25-cv-08416
99.162.148.26 5:25-cv-08418
108.231.75.107 4:25-cv-08357
108.231.75.107 5:25-cv-08357
24.130.191.32 3:25-cv-08360
24.130.191.32 4:25-cv-08360
73.15.20.173 3:25-cv-08359
73.15.20.173 4:25-cv-08359
73.162.131.28 3:25-cv-08358
73.162.131.28 4:25-cv-08358
73.71.230.66 3:25-cv-08363
98.207.200.3 3:25-cv-08362
99.13.227.247 3:25-cv-08361
99.13.227.247 4:25-cv-08361
In the Southern District Court of California:
Case Nos. 3:25-cv-03324, 3:25-cv-03325, 3:25-cv-03326, 3:25-cv-03719, 3:25-cv-02585, 3:25-cv-02588, 3:25-cv-02589, 3:25-cv-02590, 3:25-cv-02591, 3:25-cv-02324, 3:25-cv-02327, 3:25-cv-02328
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Connecticut
Connecticut cases are run by Jacqueline M. James (Jackie James) of The James Law Firm, PLLC.
CONNECTICUT CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the Connecticut District Court
3:26-cv-00586
3:26-cv-00587
*OLDER* Connecticut cases (as of 12/23/2025):
Case Nos. 3:25-cv-01944, 3:25-cv-01947
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Colorado
Colorado cases:
COLORADO CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the Colorado District Court
24.128.101.21 1:26-cv-01613
71.56.234.113 1:26-cv-01611
73.169.117.9 1:26-cv-01610
73.229.108.190 1:26-cv-01612
*OLDER* Colorado Court Cases (as of 12/23/2025)
174.51.174.119 1:25-cv-03772
76.155.7.113 1:25-cv-03769
24.128.39.107 1:25-cv-04127
73.78.162.72 1:25-cv-04129
76.155.189.107 1:25-cv-04130
67.174.101.193 1:25-cv-03142
71.205.142.102 1:25-cv-03145
73.217.36.169 1:25-cv-03144
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
District of Columbia
Their District of Columbia (DC) filing to me is an anomaly. As an attorney, I have represented many clients in DC since 2010. However, DC in the end ended up being such an ‘unfriendly’ jurisdiction for adult film copyright holders (referencing the Digital Sin v. Does 1-~2000 case), I am surprised
Strike 3 Holdings subpoena lawsuits are even tiptoe’ing around in this jurisdiction.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CASES (APRIL 2026)
1:26-cv-01288
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CASES (as of 12/23/2025)
There is ONE RECENT STRIKE 3 CASES FILED in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:
1:25-cv-03495
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Florida
Florida filings:
FLORIDA CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the Florida Middle District Court
5:26-cv-00279
8:26-cv-01085
8:26-cv-01086
8:26-cv-01087
108.253.58.166 3:26-cv-00880
Filed in the Florida Northern District Court
1:26-cv-00084
Filed in the Florida Southern District Court
0:26-cv-61104
1:26-cv-22602
1:26-cv-22604
1:26-cv-22605
9:26-cv-80424
67.191.9.89 2:26-cv-14126
76.26.26.227 0:26-cv-61101
0:26-cv-61102
*OLDER* Florida Middle District Court cases (as of 12/23/2025)
3:25-cv-01430
3:25-cv-01432
134.56.163.112 2:25-cv-01070
66.177.60.165 3:25-cv-01426
8:25-cv-02716
8:25-cv-02718
70.126.200.222 8:25-cv-02717
45.26.233.13 3:25-cv-01193
66.177.179.2 3:25-cv-01195
71.135.17.132 3:25-cv-01196
73.192.121.60 3:25-cv-01194
73.24.98.229 5:25-cv-00625
*OLDER* Florida Southern District Court cases
1:25-cv-25518
1:25-cv-25521
1:25-cv-25523
1:25-cv-25524
1:25-cv-25525
1:25-cv-25527
9:25-cv-81467
9:25-cv-81469
9:25-cv-81470
9:25-cv-81471
0:25-cv-62379
0:25-cv-62380
0:25-cv-62382
0:25-cv-62383
0:25-cv-62384
0:25-cv-62385
1:25-cv-25485
2:25-cv-14420
71.136.155.223 0:25-cv-62386
0:25-cv-62001
1:25-cv-24579
1:25-cv-24581
2:25-cv-14363
65.34.189.45 9:25-cv-81234
99.76.151.247 9:25-cv-81235
*OLDER* Florida Northern District Court cases
4:25-cv-00481
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Georgia
UPDATED GEORGIA CASES (as of 05/20/2026)
GEORGIA CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the Georgia Northern District Court
76.145.165.121 1:26-cv-02199
69.151.113.11 1:26-cv-02202
73.237.132.80 1:26-cv-02192
104.57.75.172 1:26-cv-02204
108.192.67.142 1:26-cv-02197
108.204.18.184 1:26-cv-02201
24.125.222.179 1:26-cv-02200
67.191.204.33 1:26-cv-02196
In the Georgia Northern District Court:
1:25-cv-06679
24.125.140.205 1:25-cv-06678
73.184.195.242 1:25-cv-06684
75.36.15.219 1:25-cv-06681
162.230.122.70 1:25-cv-07310
99.71.163.186 1:25-cv-07311
75.52.84.21 1:25-cv-05075
104.181.119.6 1:25-cv-05074
45.30.249.11 1:25-cv-05071
66.56.63.225 1:25-cv-05068
69.180.10.34 1:25-cv-05066
69.232.250.63 1:25-cv-05063
71.204.120.134 1:25-cv-05069
76.17.16.191 1:25-cv-05067
98.219.12.203 1:25-cv-05064
99.108.157.128 1:25-cv-05079
99.123.53.124 1:25-cv-05070
99.157.48.162 1:25-cv-05073
99.77.112.154 1:25-cv-05077
108.89.139.84 1:25-cv-05695
71.90.202.12 1:25-cv-05696
73.184.156.179 1:25-cv-05688
99.102.136.242 1:25-cv-05698
99.114.103.123 1:25-cv-05692
99.157.96.107 1:25-cv-05702
104.11.247.128 1:25-cv-05690
107.220.227.97 1:25-cv-05701
35.151.154.163 1:25-cv-05700
76.145.202.253 1:25-cv-05693
76.200.134.98 1:25-cv-05689
76.229.132.236 1:25-cv-05697
76.97.48.9 1:25-cv-05694
98.192.121.31 1:25-cv-05691
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Hawaii
UPDATED HAWAII CASES (as of 05/20/2026)
HAWAII CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the Hawaii District Court
1:26-cv-00215
1:26-cv-00217
Older cases:
Case No. 1:25-cv-00493
1:25-cv-00385
1:25-cv-00386
1:25-cv-00387
1:25-cv-00388
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Illinois
UPDATED ILLINOIS CASES (as of 05/20/2026)
*NEW* ILLINOIS CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the Illinois Northern District Court
108.233.111.117 1:26-cv-04364
24.13.117.131 1:26-cv-04357
24.136.7.89 1:26-cv-04378
24.14.84.191 1:26-cv-04374
67.173.5.147 1:26-cv-04359
73.247.144.155 1:26-cv-04366
73.36.158.108 1:26-cv-04363
73.50.231.91 1:26-cv-04372
73.8.202.61 1:26-cv-04361
76.141.122.28 1:26-cv-04358
98.193.29.205 1:26-cv-04369
98.206.73.251 1:26-cv-04368
98.227.60.33 1:26-cv-04370
99.128.199.199 1:26-cv-04379
1:26-cv-04365
*OLDER* Illinois Northern District Court cases:
149.75.244.217 1:25-cv-14203
24.14.3.76 1:25-cv-14207
67.175.22.24 1:25-cv-14220
71.57.25.73 1:25-cv-14228
73.211.3.253 1:25-cv-14215
73.74.180.109 1:25-cv-14225
76.141.116.110 1:25-cv-14219
98.227.2.181 1:25-cv-14226
98.46.168.32 1:25-cv-14224
99.120.124.102 1:25-cv-14208
99.35.166.205 1:25-cv-14222
73.73.170.37 1:25-cv-15513
205.178.36.97 1:25-cv-15522
149.75.171.67 1:25-cv-15517
24.1.24.95 1:25-cv-15521
73.211.31.183 1:25-cv-15510
73.51.1.237 1:25-cv-15516
73.73.247.189 1:25-cv-15515
75.196.101.168 1:25-cv-15514
97.242.20.141 1:25-cv-15523
104.184.84.137 1:25-cv-11884
107.142.182.233 1:25-cv-11882
107.219.68.210 1:25-cv-11883
108.209.248.137 1:25-cv-11871
64.53.162.127 1:25-cv-11873
67.163.41.12 1:25-cv-11880
67.165.152.202 1:25-cv-11877
73.168.71.226 1:25-cv-11870
73.209.231.197 1:25-cv-11875
99.149.84.189 1:25-cv-11876
205.178.98.252 1:25-cv-10701
207.181.228.91 1:25-cv-10709
208.59.164.59 1:25-cv-10708
24.12.189.27 1:25-cv-10696
24.14.241.9 1:25-cv-10699
24.14.26.69 1:25-cv-10703
67.175.154.197 1:25-cv-10705
67.184.105.118 1:25-cv-10693
73.246.63.230 1:25-cv-10687
73.247.111.9 1:25-cv-10678
73.44.241.102 1:25-cv-10706
76.157.161.47 1:25-cv-10702
23.112.163.194 1:25-cv-11988
23.116.185.122 1:25-cv-11994
45.31.89.154 1:25-cv-11990
67.163.40.162 1:25-cv-11996
67.167.5.143 1:25-cv-12011
71.201.42.50 1:25-cv-11995
73.168.27.24 1:25-cv-11991
73.72.50.246 1:25-cv-12012
76.195.239.16 1:25-cv-11986
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Kentucky
UPDATED KENTUCKY CASES (as of 12/23/2025)
*NEW* Kentucky Western District Court cases:
Case No. 3:25-cv-00741
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Maryland
UPDATED MARYLAND CASES (as of 05/20/2026)
*NEW* MARYLAND CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the Maryland District Court
8:26-cv-01469
1:26-cv-01461
1:26-cv-01463
1:26-cv-01465
1:26-cv-01466
108.28.89.38 8:26-cv-01470
73.191.5.157 1:26-cv-01468
Older Maryland Cases (from 07/2024)
Case Nos. 8:25-cv-03875
108.51.117.210 8:25-cv-03876
108.56.255.49 8:25-cv-03874
173.66.188.22 8:25-cv-03864
69.250.100.217 1:25-cv-03858
71.127.53.115 8:25-cv-03873
71.179.59.233 1:25-cv-03850
71.255.245.67 8:25-cv-03870
72.83.13.83 8:25-cv-03868
73.128.231.4 1:25-cv-03854
73.135.116.55 1:25-cv-03851
73.201.26.52 1:25-cv-03853
73.86.37.144 1:25-cv-03856
76.100.89.192 8:25-cv-03872
76.111.84.168 1:25-cv-03859
96.234.167.118 1:25-cv-03862
96.255.189.242 8:25-cv-03866
96.255.97.150 8:25-cv-03863
1:25-cv-04243
73.87.191.96 1:25-cv-04242
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Massachusetts
Massachusetts cases are all run by Jacqueline M. James (Jackie James) of The James Law Firm, PLLC.
Just as I described in the “Connecticut” section, Jackie James used to represent
Malibu Media, LLC, another prolific copyright troll. Jackie was in charge of all of the
Malibu Media, LLC cases filed in the New York District courts.
I consider Jacqueline James to be a “boss” when categorizing her among the plaintiff attorneys in their hierarchy.
Jackie James at one point was an important attorney filing many cases for Malibu Media, LLC. She even stayed with them
after there was a shake-up of Malibu Media, LLC attorneys, but then one day, she stopped filing for them.
It is important to note that Jacqueline James stopped representing Malibu Media, LLC because
she dropped them as a client. She did not “swing from one branch to the next” by dropping one client in favor of a more profitable one. When she dropped Malibu Media, LLC as a client, she did not have another client.
It was only later that [I presume] this plaintiff contacted her and asked her to file cases on their behalf.
Today, she appears to have independent authority and control of her cases, and she is in charge of the U.S. District Court filings in New York and more recently, in Connecticut.
When negotiating cases, Jacqueline James is known to be a difficult negotiator, but she is also fair. Be prepared to support everything you say with facts and if needed, documentation. Jackie James is the kind of attorney who does not simply take statements at face value, but she asks questions and follow-up questions… often which lead to uncomfortable conversations. Again, however, she is not known to gouge on the prices she asks for to settle the claims against our clients, but she remains tough in her approach.
*NEW* MASSACHUSETTS CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the Massachusetts District Court
1:26-cv-11752
1:26-cv-11753
1:26-cv-11754
1:26-cv-11755
1:26-cv-11756
1:26-cv-11757
1:26-cv-11758
OLDER MASSACHUSETTS CASES (~12/2025)
Case Nos. 1:25-cv-13533
1:25-cv-13534
1:25-cv-13535
1:25-cv-13538
1:25-cv-13539
1:25-cv-13540
1:25-cv-13542
1:25-cv-13543
1:25-cv-13544
1:25-cv-13546
1:25-cv-13547
1:25-cv-13548
1:25-cv-13549
1:25-cv-13550
1:25-cv-13552
1:25-cv-13556
1:25-cv-13557
1:25-cv-13558
1:25-cv-12840
1:25-cv-12841
1:25-cv-12842
1:25-cv-12843
1:25-cv-12844
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Michigan
Michigan Eastern & Western District Filings
MICHIGAN CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the Michigan Eastern District Court
4:26-cv-11336
2:26-cv-11165
2:26-cv-11335
2:26-cv-11337
2:26-cv-11340
*OLDER* Michigan Eastern District Court Cases
2:25-cv-13751
2:25-cv-13752
2:25-cv-13753
2:25-cv-13754
2:25-cv-13755
2:25-cv-13756
2:25-cv-13758
2:25-cv-13759
2:25-cv-13762
2:25-cv-13763
2:25-cv-13764
2:25-cv-13765
4:25-cv-13754
4:25-cv-13765
5:25-cv-13763
2:25-cv-13872
2:25-cv-12916
2:25-cv-12835
2:25-cv-12837
2:25-cv-12838
2:25-cv-12840
4:25-cv-12835
2:25-cv-13135
2:25-cv-13136
2:25-cv-13137
2:25-cv-13138
2:25-cv-13140
2:25-cv-13141
2:25-cv-13142
2:25-cv-13143
4:25-cv-13135
*OLDER* Michigan Western District Court Cases
1:25-cv-01542
1:25-cv-01544
1:25-cv-01546
1:25-cv-01547
174.162.47.15 1:25-cv-01193
68.43.169.228 1:25-cv-01189
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Minnesota
*NEW* Minnesota District Court Case
MINNISOTA CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the Minnisota District Court
24.118.95.149 0:26-cv-02330
66.41.199.25 0:25-cv-04409
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
New Jersey
New Jersey cases are run by John Atkin of The Atkin Firm, LLC.
John Atkin used to work for Fox Rothschild, LLP in New Jersey. John Atkin handled all of the New Jersey filings when he was with Fox Rothschild, LLP. At the time, I did not get the sense that he had authority to negotiate the cases himself. Rather, it appeared as if he was local counsel filing cases for Lincoln Bandlow.
That changed in/around May, 2019. As you have read above, in my observation, John Atkin overthrew Lincoln Bandlow’s authority and carved out autonomy to manage his own cases. By May, 2019, he already left Fox Rothschild, LLP and started his own law firm. I learned about this when I started seeing “The Atkin Firm, LLC” on the cases in which I was representing clients rather than Fox Rothschild, LLP.
It is now 2024, and I still think that Lincoln might still be the “boss” among the attorneys filing cases across the US, but it appears to me as if John Atkin is working on his own (maybe as a co-equal boss with John Atkin and/or Jackie James), with sole authority and decision-making power over his cases.
For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed New Jersey cases:
NEW JERSEY CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the New Jersey District Court
3:26-cv-04148
100.35.176.14 3:26-cv-04147
100.8.116.72 2:26-cv-04106
108.5.89.254 3:26-cv-04146
108.50.248.25 3:26-cv-04149
173.54.214.43 2:26-cv-04104
173.70.52.221 2:26-cv-04107
24.0.84.197 3:26-cv-04150
71.187.204.208 2:26-cv-04102
71.187.67.161 3:26-cv-04151
71.250.100.69 2:26-cv-04108
74.102.133.20 2:26-cv-04103
74.102.15.23 2:26-cv-04109
OLDER NJ CASES (~12/2025):
3:25-cv-17938
100.35.195.81 2:25-cv-17929
100.35.7.52 2:25-cv-17927
100.8.169.70 2:25-cv-17930
100.8.52.83 3:25-cv-17936
142.105.38.232 2:25-cv-17928
173.71.126.109 3:25-cv-17933
24.0.20.231 2:25-cv-17931
71.172.177.233 3:25-cv-17935
71.187.27.139 2:25-cv-17925
71.188.118.236 3:25-cv-17939
71.250.13.209 2:25-cv-17934
73.196.45.127 2:25-cv-17926
96.242.130.172 2:25-cv-17924
96.248.119.189 3:25-cv-17937
108.5.244.235 2:25-cv-17873
173.72.27.37 1:25-cv-17867
173.72.41.32 1:25-cv-17871
71.250.119.14 2:25-cv-17876
73.178.234.11 1:25-cv-17872
73.196.228.18 1:25-cv-17869
73.33.50.172 1:25-cv-17870
96.225.97.226 2:25-cv-17874
96.234.46.174 2:25-cv-17875
108.53.177.221 2:25-cv-18916
69.142.182.38 3:25-cv-18925
71.251.206.76 3:25-cv-18922
72.76.217.127 3:25-cv-18924
72.76.234.219 3:25-cv-18927
73.198.60.181 3:25-cv-18928
73.199.28.207 2:25-cv-18917
73.29.40.103 3:25-cv-18919
96.234.105.2 2:25-cv-18915
98.109.134.102 2:25-cv-18914
98.109.48.7 3:25-cv-18918
100.1.8.190 2:25-cv-18904
100.8.212.204 2:25-cv-18906
108.5.157.216 2:25-cv-18899
173.54.146.182 2:25-cv-18903
173.61.31.235 1:25-cv-18896
71.187.91.167 2:25-cv-18898
73.160.8.55 2:25-cv-18901
73.196.42.180 1:25-cv-18895
74.102.109.35 2:25-cv-18902
100.1.110.74 2:25-cv-16122
100.8.225.223 2:25-cv-16121
108.53.225.158 2:25-cv-16123
108.53.40.97 2:25-cv-16124
173.54.199.158 2:25-cv-16126
173.54.96.53 2:25-cv-16127
71.127.248.104 2:25-cv-16120
73.215.147.214 2:25-cv-16125
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
*NOTES TO SELF: There are TWO IMPORTANT reasons why they are putting so much money into filing lawsuits in New Jersey:
1) They almost lost New Jersey as a state in which they would be allowed by the New Jersey District Court to sue defendants (for lawyers, it was bad case law). For a short while, judges stood up to them and stopped them from being allowed to send subpoenas to ISPs to force the ISPs to hand over the subscriber information to them.
Apparently Atkin and his client won that battle, so now they are taking advantage of that “WIN” and suing many ISP subscribers in New Jersey.
2) The plaintiff attorney for each of these New Jersey cases is John Atkin of the Atkin Firm, LLC. There is a history WHY John Atkin is important to New Jersey, and that history is uncovered by understanding WHAT HAPPENED with the shake-up of attorneys last year.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
New York
New York cases are run by Jacqueline M. James (Jackie James) of The James Law Firm, PLLC (and more recently in 2023, I have been seeing some NY cases filed by John Atkin).
Just as I described in the “Connecticut” section, Jackie James used to represent Malibu Media, LLC, another prolific copyright troll. Jackie was in charge of all of the Malibu Media, LLC cases filed in the New York District Courts.
I consider Jacqueline James to be a “boss” when categorizing her among the other attorneys.
Jackie James at one point was an important attorney filing many cases for Malibu Media, LLC. She even stayed with them after there was a shake-up of Malibu Media, LLC attorneys, but then one day she stopped filing for them.
It is important to note that Jacqueline James stopped representing Malibu Media, LLC because she dropped them as a client. She did not “swing from one branch to the next” by dropping one client in favor of a more profitable one. When she dropped Malibu Media, LLC as a client, she did not have another client.
It was only later that [I presume] they contacted her and asked her to file cases on their behalf. Today, she appears to have independent authority and control of her cases, and she is in charge of the U.S. District Court filings across New York and more recently, in Connecticut.
When negotiating cases, Jacqueline James is known to be a difficult negotiator, but she is also fair. Be prepared to support everything you say with facts and if needed, documentation. Jackie James is the kind of attorney who does not simply take statements at face value, but she asks questions and follow-up questions… often which lead to uncomfortable conversations. Again, however, she is not known to gouge on the amounts her client asks for, but she is a tough in her approach.
2024 UPDATE: Again, I have seen a number of NY filings made by JOHN ATKIN (from NJ) and not by Jackie James. I have my radar up on what this might mean.
For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed New York cases:
*UPDATED* NEW YORK CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the New York Eastern District Court
2:26-cv-02241
2:26-cv-02244
2:26-cv-02245
100.2.31.20 1:26-cv-02275
108.30.53.205 1:26-cv-02269
108.54.123.251 1:26-cv-02277
141.157.196.238 1:26-cv-02276
47.230.121.29 1:26-cv-02266
66.108.3.151 1:26-cv-02281
67.247.2.161 1:26-cv-02264
68.129.252.68 1:26-cv-02280
68.194.97.55 1:26-cv-02271
69.122.128.161 1:26-cv-02268
71.125.47.227 1:26-cv-02279
71.183.252.42 1:26-cv-02267
72.80.136.174 1:26-cv-02278
72.80.14.89 1:26-cv-02263
74.108.103.79 1:26-cv-02262
97.222.4.176 1:26-cv-02270
98.7.251.82 1:26-cv-02265
Filed in the New York Northern District Court
1:26-cv-00750
Filed in the New York Southern District Court
1:26-cv-03257
1:26-cv-03279
1:26-cv-03281
1:26-cv-03283
1:26-cv-03284
7:26-cv-03285
Filed in the New York Western District Court
1:26-cv-00763
6:26-cv-06443
OLDER NEW YORK CASES (~12/2025)
In the New York Eastern District Court:
Case Nos. 2:25-cv-06466
2:25-cv-06467
2:25-cv-06469
2:25-cv-06470
24.188.8.58 1:25-cv-06478
68.173.93.212 1:25-cv-06483
68.175.110.161 1:25-cv-06482
100.2.147.8 1:25-cv-06433
100.37.115.183 1:25-cv-06447
100.37.85.6 1:25-cv-06440
158.222.231.95 1:25-cv-06450
162.84.245.90 1:25-cv-06437
63.122.168.43 1:25-cv-06448
67.87.165.57 1:25-cv-06431
69.203.151.131 1:25-cv-06430
71.125.196.87 1:25-cv-06449
71.247.77.184 1:25-cv-06446
72.229.5.190 1:25-cv-06438
74.65.206.84 1:25-cv-06443
74.72.69.81 1:25-cv-06432
98.14.197.174 1:25-cv-06442
2:25-cv-05449
2:25-cv-05450
2:25-cv-05451
2:25-cv-05452
2:25-cv-05453
2:25-cv-05455
2:25-cv-05457
2:25-cv-05459
2:25-cv-05460
100.12.239.247 1:25-cv-04979
100.2.85.25 1:25-cv-04984
108.46.212.185 1:25-cv-04972
108.54.147.109 1:25-cv-04977
184.152.161.194 1:25-cv-04987
209.122.201.249 1:25-cv-04991
68.161.215.190 1:25-cv-04980
68.237.120.99 1:25-cv-04982
69.206.236.198 1:25-cv-04975
69.206.238.221 1:25-cv-04989
70.18.29.202 1:25-cv-04971
71.249.150.168 1:25-cv-04974
74.72.180.121 1:25-cv-04985
74.73.87.173 1:25-cv-04976
100.2.253.31 1:25-cv-05531
100.38.193.250 1:25-cv-05537
104.246.80.16 1:25-cv-05526
108.29.111.117 1:25-cv-05535
108.46.192.95 1:25-cv-05541
108.54.194.4 1:25-cv-05536
108.6.120.248 1:25-cv-05534
66.65.42.230 1:25-cv-05538
67.244.12.24 1:25-cv-05525
68.132.31.147 1:25-cv-05529
71.105.192.199 1:25-cv-05532
71.190.104.159 1:25-cv-05527
72.226.45.39 1:25-cv-05539
72.80.142.234 1:25-cv-05530
98.113.31.25 1:25-cv-05540
100.12.204.208 1:25-cv-05499
100.12.237.241 1:25-cv-05509
100.2.236.99 1:25-cv-05496
100.37.197.87 1:25-cv-05508
108.29.146.161 1:25-cv-05495
173.77.82.97 1:25-cv-05503
24.90.26.143 1:25-cv-05505
67.254.222.211 1:25-cv-05507
68.192.227.58 1:25-cv-05500
68.237.75.200 1:25-cv-05498
71.167.27.178 1:25-cv-05510
74.72.75.120 1:25-cv-05511
96.246.168.97 1:25-cv-05506
98.113.67.158 1:25-cv-05512
98.116.106.7 1:25-cv-05504
98.14.117.71 1:25-cv-05513
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
In the New York Northern District Court:
Case No. 1:25-cv-01645
In the New York Southern District Court:
Case Nos. 1:25-cv-09725
1:25-cv-09727
1:25-cv-09728
1:25-cv-09729
1:25-cv-09730
7:25-cv-09731
7:25-cv-09732
7:25-cv-09734
7:25-cv-09735
7:25-cv-09736
7:25-cv-09737
1:25-cv-10611
1:25-cv-10612
1:25-cv-10614
1:25-cv-10615
1:25-cv-10618
1:25-cv-10619
1:25-cv-10623
1:25-cv-10624
7:25-cv-10625
7:25-cv-10626
1:25-cv-07397
1:25-cv-07398
1:25-cv-07399
1:25-cv-07400
1:25-cv-07401
7:25-cv-07402
7:25-cv-07404
7:25-cv-07405
7:25-cv-07406
7:25-cv-07403
1:25-cv-08111
1:25-cv-08114
1:25-cv-08115
1:25-cv-08116
1:25-cv-08117
1:25-cv-08118
7:25-cv-08119
7:25-cv-08120
7:25-cv-08122
In the New York Western District Court:
Case Nos. 1:25-cv-01262
1:25-cv-01263
1:25-cv-01264
6:25-cv-06705
6:25-cv-06706
6:25-cv-06707
1:25-cv-00821
1:25-cv-00822
6:25-cv-06461
2022-2025 UPDATE: I am happy to share that while searching for Dawn Sciarrino (when writing up the Virginia cases), I could not understand why she would take this plaintiff as a client. However, searching for her, I found that Jackie James actually listed her as an attorney under her law firm. While I will post Dawn’s page under her state, because her we are discussing Jackie, you can find Jacqueline James’ profile and website here.
North Carolina
NORTH CAROLINA CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the North Carolina Eastern District Court
5:26-cv-00285
5:26-cv-00286
5:26-cv-00287
5:26-cv-00288
Filed in the North Carolina Western District Court
3:26-cv-00344
3:26-cv-00345
OLDER NORTH CAROLINA CASES (~12/2025)
In the North Carolina Eastern District Court:
Case Nos. 5:25-cv-00755
5:25-cv-00756
5:25-cv-00757
5:25-cv-00758
5:25-cv-00759
5:25-cv-00760
7:25-cv-01576
5:25-cv-00575
In the North Carolina Western District Court:
3:25-cv-00939
3:25-cv-00940
3:25-cv-00941
3:25-cv-00942
3:25-cv-00943
3:25-cv-00944
3:25-cv-00690
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania filings (in 2022) were all made by Jason M. Saruya of Clark Hill PLC.
Jason Saruya of Clark Hill PLC is the name of the attorney who is showing up for the filings in Pennsylvania District Court.
He works for Clark Hill PLC, and he works out of the Philadelphia, PA office.
There is not much information about Jason Saruya, but from what I understand, he is a younger attorney, and he is probably working with Elsy Velasquez as his superior, as Elsy Velasquez was the attorney from Clark Hill PLC that took over the Maryland cases after the shake-up of their attorneys.
I will check whether he is still running the cases in 2024, and if not, I will do my best to update this.
For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Pennsylvania cases:
PENNSYLVANIA CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
100.19.98.92 2:26-cv-02571
108.52.98.188 2:26-cv-02564
146.115.220.227 5:26-cv-02572
173.49.147.111 2:26-cv-02563
69.137.134.35 2:26-cv-02568
71.175.137.10 2:26-cv-02567
71.246.13.152 2:26-cv-02565
73.165.57.44 2:26-cv-02569
73.233.8.104 2:26-cv-02570
98.115.220.250 2:26-cv-02566
Filed in the Pennsylvania Middle District Court
1:26-cv-00970
OLDER PENNSYLVANIA CASES (~12/2025)
In the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court:
146.115.225.208 5:25-cv-06631
146.135.13.134 5:25-cv-06628
174.59.243.27 5:25-cv-06630
216.164.247.187 5:25-cv-06629
70.110.139.109 2:25-cv-06625
70.16.158.251 5:25-cv-06627
71.185.23.88 2:25-cv-06626
72.94.14.157 2:25-cv-06624
73.188.83.99 2:25-cv-06623
100.11.132.69 2:25-cv-06596
72.94.13.54 2:25-cv-06587
100.11.150.43 2:25-cv-07271
100.11.208.112 2:25-cv-07273
100.19.43.204 2:25-cv-07275
131.106.23.127 5:25-cv-07279
173.49.205.163 2:25-cv-07276
69.249.188.26 2:25-cv-07274
71.175.45.118 2:25-cv-07278
72.86.185.174 2:25-cv-07270
73.13.160.76 2:25-cv-07277
76.98.206.1 2:25-cv-07272
100.34.149.245 2:25-cv-07252
100.34.79.254 2:25-cv-07255
173.49.27.65 2:25-cv-07253
174.141.138.219 2:25-cv-07259
69.249.248.242 2:25-cv-07249
69.253.10.233 2:25-cv-07256
71.185.208.218 2:25-cv-07250
74.109.117.76 2:25-cv-07258
100.11.210.132 2:25-cv-05629
100.34.227.15 2:25-cv-05628
108.4.212.91 2:25-cv-05635
141.158.52.240 2:25-cv-05636
173.49.147.216 2:25-cv-05625
50.239.78.86 2:25-cv-05631
68.80.8.144 2:25-cv-05624
71.175.51.188 2:25-cv-05626
71.185.226.32 2:25-cv-05633
72.94.190.20 2:25-cv-05630
73.13.3.195 2:25-cv-05634
In the Pennsylvania Middle District Court:
3:25-cv-02205
3:25-cv-02204
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Tennessee
TENNESSEE CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the Tennessee Middle District Court
3:26-cv-00483
3:26-cv-00483
Filed in the Tennessee Western District Court
2:26-cv-02436
*OLDER* TENNESSEE CASES (~12/2025)
In the Tennessee Middle District Court:
Case Nos. 3:25-cv-01384
3:25-cv-01367
3:25-cv-01369
3:25-cv-01370
In the Tennessee Western District Court:
2:25-cv-03078
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Texas
Texas cases are run by Paul Beik of Beik Law Firm, PLLC.
2022-2025 UPDATED INFORMATION:
Paul Beik is the dominant plaintiff attorney in the Texas lawsuits, although in previous years, I have seen other attorneys file from outside of the Houston area (and for that reason, I am mentioning the other attorneys here).
In 2022, I wrote about Forrest Matthew Seger, III of Clark Hill (San Antonio), or
Andy Nikolopoulos and David Grant Crooks, both from Fox Rothschild LLP as representing some their Texas cases.
However, as of January, 2022, I stopped seeing their names filed on new cases in the Texas District courts. In the past year, it appears to me as if Paul Beik is the only one filing new cases across the state of Texas for this plaintiff.
For the moment, it is noteworthy to list their newly filed Texas cases:
*NEW* TEXAS CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the Texas Northern District Court
3:26-cv-01211
3:26-cv-01213
3:26-cv-01215
3:26-cv-01216
3:26-cv-01217
3:26-cv-01218
3:26-cv-01209
Filed in the Texas Southern District Court
4:26-cv-03006
4:26-cv-03007
4:26-cv-03009
4:26-cv-03010
4:26-cv-03011
4:26-cv-03012
4:26-cv-03014
4:26-cv-03015
4:26-cv-03016
4:26-cv-03017
Filed in the Texas Western District Court
1:26-cv-00953
1:26-cv-00955
1:26-cv-00956
1:26-cv-00958
5:26-cv-02502
*OLDER* TEXAS CASES (~12/2025)
In the Texas Eastern District Court:
Case Nos. 4:25-cv-01261
4:25-cv-01263
In the Texas Northern District Court:
Case Nos. 3:25-cv-03213
3:25-cv-03514
3:25-cv-03515
3:25-cv-03516
3:25-cv-03517
3:25-cv-03518
3:25-cv-03519
3:25-cv-02658
3:25-cv-02659
3:25-cv-02660
3:25-cv-02661
3:25-cv-02662
3:25-cv-02663
3:25-cv-02664
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
In the Texas Southern District Court:
Case Nos. 4:25-cv-05613
4:25-cv-05614
4:25-cv-05615
4:25-cv-05616
4:25-cv-05617
4:25-cv-05618
4:25-cv-05619
4:25-cv-05620
4:25-cv-05621
4:25-cv-05622
4:25-cv-06195
4:25-cv-06196
4:25-cv-06198
4:25-cv-06199
4:25-cv-06200
4:25-cv-06202
4:25-cv-06204
4:25-cv-06205
4:25-cv-06207
4:25-cv-06208
4:25-cv-06209
4:25-cv-06210
4:25-cv-06211
4:25-cv-06212
4:25-cv-06213
4:25-cv-04665
4:25-cv-04666
4:25-cv-04667
4:25-cv-04668
4:25-cv-04669
4:25-cv-04670
4:25-cv-04672
4:25-cv-04673
4:25-cv-04674
4:25-cv-04675
4:25-cv-04676
4:25-cv-04677
4:25-cv-04678
4:25-cv-04679
4:25-cv-04680
4:25-cv-04681
4:25-cv-04682
4:25-cv-04683
4:25-cv-04684
73.115.218.182 3:25-cv-00316
In the Texas Western District Court:
Case Nos. 1:25-cv-01880
1:25-cv-01881
1:25-cv-01882
1:25-cv-01883
1:25-cv-01884
1:25-cv-01885
1:25-cv-01886
1:25-cv-01888
1:25-cv-01890
1:25-cv-01891
5:25-cv-01540
5:25-cv-01541
5:25-cv-01542
5:25-cv-01543
1:25-cv-01582
1:25-cv-01583
1:25-cv-01584
1:25-cv-01585
5:25-cv-01235
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Virginia
Virginia cases are run by Dawn Marie Sciarrino of Sciarrino & Shubert, PLLC (more recently, I have found that she is working for Jacqueline James, the attorney for the NY/CT region).
Dawn Marie Sciarrino is the name of the attorney who is showing up for the filings in the Virginia federal court.
MY ORIGINAL WRITE-UP ON DAWN:
Dawn Marie appears to be a partner in her law firm, and she works out of Centreville, VA.
There is not much information about Dawn Marie Sciarrino (even their https://www.sciarrino.com website was down when I tried to reach it).
From what I understand, she has been practicing as an attorney for many years. Her first bar was in New York in 1991, and she has represented clients before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and for the District of Columbia Circut.
What I do not understand is… [with her background, both educational and vocational] why in the world would she take them as a client? This makes no sense to me.
2022-2025 UPDATED INFORMATION: Doing further research, I was very surprised to see that Dawn Sciarrino was
listed as an attorney on Jackie James’ website.
Understanding Jackie James’ background and her experience, the connection between Jackie and Dawn became clear. They know each other. It was likely Jackie who suggested that Dawn take the Virginia cases because
They needed an attorney to file lawsuits in the Virginia District Court against those Miami-Dade defendants who did not settle the claims against them.
For the moment, it is noteworthy to list the newly filed Virginia cases:
*NEW* VIRGINIA CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court
1:26-cv-01048
1:26-cv-01049
1:26-cv-01050
1:26-cv-01054
1:26-cv-01062
1:26-cv-01064
1:26-cv-01065
1:26-cv-01067
*OLDER* VIRGINIA CASES (~12/2025)
In the Virginia Eastern District Court:
1:25-cv-02198
1:25-cv-02199
1:25-cv-02200
1:25-cv-02201
1:25-cv-02202
1:25-cv-02203
1:25-cv-02204
1:25-cv-02205
1:25-cv-02207
1:25-cv-02208
1:25-cv-02209
1:25-cv-02197
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Ohio
*NEW* OHIO CASES (~04/2026)
*NEW* OHIO CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the Ohio Northern District Court
1:26-cv-00951
Filed in the Ohio Southern District Court
1:26-cv-00395
2:26-cv-00492
3:26-cv-00123
*OLDER* Ohio cases from ~12/2025
In the Ohio Northern District Court:
Case Nos. 1:25-cv-02571
3:25-cv-02572
5:25-cv-02558
5:25-cv-02559
5:25-cv-02561
5:25-cv-02562
5:25-cv-02563
5:25-cv-02565
1:25-cv-02567
1:25-cv-02568
1:25-cv-02570
4:25-cv-01966
4:25-cv-01967
1:25-cv-01964
3:25-cv-01965
5:25-cv-01955
5:25-cv-01956
5:25-cv-01957
1:25-cv-01958
In the Ohio Southern District Court:
Case Nos. 1:25-cv-00853
1:25-cv-00854
1:25-cv-00855
2:25-cv-01347
2:25-cv-01348
2:25-cv-01349
2:25-cv-01350
2:25-cv-01351
2:25-cv-01352
2:25-cv-01353
3:25-cv-00402
3:25-cv-00403
1:25-cv-00656
2:25-cv-01017
2:25-cv-01019
2:25-cv-01020
2:25-cv-01023
3:25-cv-00295
3:25-cv-00296
3:25-cv-00297
2:25-cv-01022
1:25-cv-00719
1:25-cv-00720
2:25-cv-01148
2:25-cv-01149
2:25-cv-01150
2:25-cv-01151
2:25-cv-01152
2:25-cv-01153
2:25-cv-01154
2:25-cv-01155
2:25-cv-01156
3:25-cv-00333
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Wisconsin
*NEW* WISCONSIN CASES (~04/2026)
WISCONSIN CASES (APRIL 2026)
Filed in the Wisconsin Eastern District Court
2:26-cv-00702
2:26-cv-00703
2:26-cv-00704
2:26-cv-00705
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.
Hashtags: #copyrightinfringement #ISPsubpoena #Strike3Holdings #lawsuits #settlementoptions #legaladvice #copyrightlaw #internetpiracy #copyrightprotection #copyrighteducation #copyrightdefense #copyrightinfringementlawsuit #copyrightinfringementnotice #copyrightinfringementlawyer #copyrightinfringementclaims #copyrightinfringement #copyrightinfringementissues
