Counter actions against trolls


I discontinued updates to this page because since the second half of 2012 and through 2013 people started fighting back en masse. Updating this page would take an unreasonable time and effort.

Individuals suing troll plaintiff and/or troll lawyers
Counter-claims by defendants
Class actions
  • Dmitriy Shirokov v. Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver PLLC et al. MAD 1:10-cv-12043 (Massachusetts District)
  • Barker and Hutchinson v. Patrick Collins Inc. et al. KYWD 3:12-cv-00372 (Kentucky Western District)


37 responses to ‘Counter actions against trolls

  1. Are there any grounds for a class action suit against a troll firm for harrassment/fraud/etc? If so, why do none seem to exist?

    • The only class action lawsuit against copyright trolls is Dmitry Shirokov v DWG handled by Booth Sweet. It progresses very slowly: it took a year and dozens of motions to get class certification… But despite its turtle race speed, so far so good.

      DGW are fraudsters, no doubt, but Steele and similar trolls committed much more questionable deeds, hence are way more vulnerable, so I hope that it’s just a matter of time before someone starts a class action suit. Either that or just a massive counter-suing campaign that would drain money from the trolls — something similar to what happened to Righthaven.

    • There are grounds for harassment suits IF you have sent them a cease a desist letter (certified, signature confirmation obviously). They (and by “they” I mean Mark Lutz) are subject to the same rules and regs (FDCPA) as debt collectors because they have made it very clear that they are debt collectors. You really don’t have to tell them in writing to cease and desist. A verbal order will sufficie. If they contact you again, then you have ammo for an FDCPA suit. I record all of the messages Lutz has left me (28 so far) to use as ammo if need be.

      As far as fraud goes, good luck. I believe Shirokov had his counts of RICO against DGW shot down by the judge. DGW is a bunch of low lifes but Steele’s outfit is more like an organized crime syndicate…incompetent but organized. I believe it’s only a matter of time before a class action suit is filed against Prenda and there will be civil RICO counts included in the complaint. It’ll be harder to get RICO dismissed from the complaint in Steele’s case.

  2. don’t know about class action, however, an attorney I talked to said I could reasonably file a declaratory judgment action…does such a motion allow for monetary compensation? (attorney fees or anything else)

    • Seth the Underdog, despite Pirate Hunter’s disses, may well exceed expectations and help topple a cynical business model that is already reeling (when senior citizens start shaking their canes at you, time to look into more honest work like selling used cars).

      • Yes even used car salesmen have some ethics as they would like referrals. Would you refer you porn making friends to these jokers?

  3. We have just filed a class action against 5 of the “studios” in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. We have alleged civil RICO and several other causes of action against the defendants. Check out the case as the Pace website for the Western District of Kentucky: 3-12-cv-372-S

    • Thank you! I will be happy to cover the progress of this lawsuit. We all, victims, friends and honest citizens not directly assaulted by trolls, are happy and will root for you and your client. If you need anything from the community and myself, we will be happy to provide any help.

  4. Regarding Case 11-18746 CA 27 filed in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicail Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida, there has been no activity listed in the case since 12/2011. Also, more than 120 days has passed since they received my personal info from ISP. Any advise from anyone if I should pursue a motion to court to dismiss original case.

  5. William R. Wohlsifer, PA obtained a favorable ruling for Florida for their Doe defendant in Case No. 1:12-cv-20920, Sunlust Pictures, LLC v. Does 1-120. On July 24, 2012, the Honorable Patricia A. Seitz, U.S. District Judge, Southern District of Florida, entered the court’s OMNIBUS ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEVER, DISMISSING THE CLAIMS AGAINST DOES 2-120 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND VACATING THE PORTION OF THE COURT’S ORDER GRANTING EARLY DISCOVERY AS TO DOES 2-120. My client was the only Doe defendant to file a defensive motion in this case. I included legal arguments asking the court to dismiss the action or sever the defendants for improper joinder, vacate the order that had allowed for the pre-Rule 26(f) subpoena to issue, and quash the subpoena. The court granted the motion to sever, granted the motion to quash subpoena, and granted the motion to dismiss, and partially vacated the pre-Rule 26(f) discovery order for all but Doe 1. In ruling on these motions the court gave considerable weight to the argument that defendants’ alleged actions, even when viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, do not sufficiently meet the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences test. Further, the court held that the principles of fundamental fairness and judicial economy outweigh the obstacles inherent in joining these numerous defendants in the same action. The court wrote on page 10 of the order:

    “The Plaintiff understandably has a keen interest in proceeding against numerous Defendants in one lawsuit to reduce the costs of protecting its copyright by avoiding multiple filing fees. However, this interest is outweighed by the fact that the requirements for establishing permissive joinder are not met in this BitTorrent copyright infringement case. Infringers of a copyrighted file should be held liable, but they cannot be joined with hundreds or even thousands of BitTorrent protocol users solely because they downloaded pieces of the same file. Such facts do not satisfy the ‘same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences’ requirement for permissive joinder. Moreover, severing Defendants promotes efficiency as set forth above. For these reasons, the Court finds misjoinder.”

    Plaintiff is now directed to notify each ISP to which it has issued a subpoena that Plaintiff is no longer authorized to seek early discovery with respect to Does 2-120 who are no longer parties to this litigation. The court further ordered (in footnote 11) that if Plaintiff does not comply with this requirement, it will be subject to sanctions.

    A copy of the order is available at

  6. In case no one’s checked the Barker v. Patrick Collins, Inc. et al docket lately, the complaint was amended to include a new plaintiff. Now it’s “Barker & Hutchinson v. Patrick Collins, Inc. et al.” Something tells me this is just the beginning of a pretty big ass class action suit that’s gonna cost the defendants A LOT of money to defend against, even if they win.


    Amended complaint:

    • it’s always nice when they go after not only the porn company, but the lawyers who perpetuated the mess in the first place.

      and oh look, another case where they seek a declaration that porn is not copyrightable. will we see jackass randazza’s amicus brief again??

  7. James Dore’s claim is actually one I’m interested in. That’s the first claim I’ve seen with, what I would call, a common sense, as well as legal basis for a claim of consent from the producers to actually seed out their torrent. From what I’ve looked up and read. The way Bit-Torrent works, is in order to join the swarm, you must be sending out bits of the file.

    Considering they are using claims that start with several weeks+ between persons being sued, that means the company in question was ‘seeding’ the ‘work’ for those several weeks. I don’t understand how the cases can’t simply be thrown out for that alone. First, to prevent loss of revenue, they would need to have the tracker shut down the moment the file is discovered, IE: A DMCA sent to the tracker. That should have been the first step. Since every one of these cases ignored that basic step.

    Is it not basic entrapment for the company collecting these ISPs, to be seeding the file, and actively keeping the sharing going for the sole purpose of collecting IP Numbers? We have lawyers here, Raul, Cash, your opinions? Is it not basis for all of these cases to simply be thrown out on the fact there was absolutely nothing done to mitigate damages, and the producers of the works themselves through their hiring of the ‘monitoring’ companies, are giving license for their ‘work’ to be shared by all of the people that the company is claiming damages against with no DMCA sent out?

    I can understand technology has moved beyond the pace of the law, but unless they have some way of harvesting the IP addresses without actively sharing the ‘work’, there is no way of telling how much of the unmitigated damage is actually caused by the harvesting company itself, by way of keeping the ‘torrent’ active for weeks on end by constantly sharing the full file rather than sending a single take down notice to the Tracker upon finding it.

    • Unfortunetly failure to mitigate damages and the plaintiff’s BitTorrent distribution of its porn are affirmative defenses which might come into play in a summary judgement motion, after the completion of discovery, it is not enough to get a lawsuit tossed at the get go as there are questions of fact. If any of these counterclaims ever get to a verdict this will change as there will be some precedent to point to.

      • I am not a lawyer, but what he (Raul) said.

        The justice system has treated trolling as a reasonable civil court matter. It supposes that factual matters will be argued and settled in a real trial of merit. But after hundreds of cases, there are still no real trials where judgement is made on full evidence and presentation. Trolls only need discovery of contact information to demand money, threaten a trial and make off like bandits. Trolls have little to gain and everything to lose from real trials, which they have dodged for several years now.

        You rightly raise some, though far from all, of the technological flaws in the porn copyright troll scam. They’re also flaws in these cases outside of the technology issues. The justice system has not responded quickly to abuse of legal process-pretending to bring cases before the court while making thousands of cash demands for thousands of dollars.

        • And yet nothing substantial has occurred except for trolls fucking up and getting sanctioned and a few counter-suits, one settled with an NDA. The Barker RICO class action will take years to make it through the system so don’t count on that. It won’t even be certified as a class action for another year or two.

          There needs to be some mechanism to allow judges to quickly audit the technology that these supposed “witnesses” use to collect IPs instead of being told to take some uncredentialed hack who’s on the troll’s payroll at his word.. Until then, said technology used to collect the “evidence” will be shrouded in secrecy and they take the “expert” at his word.

          Supposed “witnesses” who either work for or are contracted by the plaintiff or plaintiff’s counsel and who share the money from settlements should not be allowed to bear witness because it gives them extra incentive to perjure themselves, fabricate or alter evidence, and do God knows what else just to make more money. They’ve probably structured it to not be that way though, but if you look at the money trail, assuming they didn’t use some “creative accounting” which I’m sure they do just in case they’re audited (they’re too stupid to realize that all CFEs as well as most CPAs are very skilled at finding fraud), the path of the settlement money will be able to be traced to payments to witnesses. I can’t even imagine what else they use the money for.

  8. If I read the document correctly that SJD tweeted about, Yuen has filed a convincing motion for summary judgement on behalf of Seth Abrahams against Hard Drive Productions, Inc.

    I hope this motion will be granted swiftly with no confidential buy out by Hard Drive Productions. Let’s save everybody time by establishing a reference recognizing the rotten troll methods.

  9. New Sensations, Inc. v. Does 1-83 1:12-cv-10944 filed a response to James Dore’s Counterclaim on the 15th of last month, probably the same bs that all the other ones are.

  10. I was going over some of these. The Seth Abrahams case seemed to go well for Hard Drive Productions/Prenda, only because it was DISMISSED due to “lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”


    I would like to point peoples attention to section “C. Subject Matter Jurisdiction” because of Prenda’s ability to weasel out of judgments against them.

    Though the judge threw this case out, in the middle of December Seth filed for an appeal. There have been no additional actions since that filing other than an acceptance of filing fees for Appeal on January 3rd, but it is still an interesting one to watch.

    • Lawsuit has been allowed, 2 of the three defendants have been served. some defendants are th C.E.G. and Marvin Cable himself

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s