Copyright Trolls and the Potential Impact on Contributory Copyright Infringement: What Adult Film Companies’ Lawsuits may Indicate about Internet Service Providers’ Liability

A pornographic production company has exploited the legal system by filing lawsuits alleging copyright infringement. The company tracks potential infringers’ IP addresses and subpoenas their internet service providers (“ISPs”) to locate defendants. Other copyright holders utilize similar tactics to bring claims of contributory copyright infringement. ISPs are privy to their users’ information, and copyright trolls rely on subpoenas to gather essential data. Since the information supplied by ISPs is vital to pursuing these contributory copyright infringement claims, ISPs may possibly be held liable for their involvement in their subscribers’ conduct.  

Strike 3 has raked in millions of dollars by pursuing litigation against unsuspecting internet users targeted for their alleged infringement of the corporation’s movies. Strike 3 holds intellectual property rights to a substantial number of pornographic films; most of the films are produced by its adult film production division. Tarpley Hitt, Rise of the ‘porno-trolls’: how one porn platform made millions suing its viewers, The Guardian (Nov. 4, 2025, 7:18 AM), https://www.theguardian.com/society/ng-interactive/2025/nov/04/strike-3-porn-copyright-lawsuits. These filings make up approximately fifty percent of federal copyright lawsuits. See id. The long-lasting stigma and shameful attitudes surrounding pornography pressure defendants into settling the suits quickly and quietly. See id. Because of this, Strike 3’s tactics for locating potential defendants are yet to be fully understood. See id. However, Strike 3’s past filings have followed a similar pattern for locating apparent infringers. See Hitt, supra.  Its software scans IP addresses of individuals who supposedly downloaded Strike 3’s content and the company asks the court to subpoena the infringer’s ISP. See id. Most subpoenas are granted, subsequently giving Strike 3 the license to pursue action against individuals who may or may not have participated in copyright infringement of pornographic videos. Gene Markin, What to Do If You Get a Letter from Your Internet Service Provider (ISP) About a Subpoena to Turn Over Your Name and Address, The National Law Review (Aug. 11, 2020), (last visited Mar. 8, 2026) https://natlawreview.com/article/what-to-do-if-you-get-letter-your-internet-service-provider-isp-about-subpoena-to; See Hitt, supra. In 2025, a court denied a motion to quash Strike 3’s subpoena. Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 2:24-CV-8183-TJH (SPX), 2025 WL 88212, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2025). Spectrum was required to disclose the defendant’s identity to Strike 3. Id. at *1. The court’s refusal to quash the subpoena illustrates Strike 3’s ability to leverage the legal system in its favor, leaving individuals with minimal defenses against Strike 3’s exploitative filings. See id.  

However, this sort of litigation is not exclusive to Strike 3. Malibu Media LLC, a company that creates pornographic movies, pursued upwards of 1,300 copyright infringement claims around 2014. Gabe Friedman, The Biggest Filer of Copyright Lawsuits? This Erotic Web Site, The New Yorker (May 14, 2014), https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-biggest-filer-of-copyright-lawsuits-this-erotica-web-site (last visited Mar. 8, 2026). Under copyright law, damages can be awarded anywhere from seven hundred fifty to 150,000 dollars. Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 504. While Malibu usually pursues the maximum allotted damages, its defendants reached settlements ranging from 2,000 to 30,000 dollars. See Friedman, supra. Besides settlement agreements, Malibu also made monetary gains in court: in one instance, Malibu was awarded almost 4,000 dollars in statutory damages after the defendant disseminated copyrighted material. Malibu Media, LLC v. Mantilla, No. 3:18-cv-01369 (JAM), 2020 WL 686678, at *5, 6 (D. Conn. Nov. 20, 2020).  

Companies that file substantial amounts of these types of lawsuits are deemed “copyright trolls.” Copyright Trolls, EFF, https://www.eff.org/issues/copyright-trolls (last visited Mar. 8, 2026). File-sharing software like BitTorrent historically allowed individuals to easily access copyrighted material and adult film companies realized they could exploit users’ online activity. See Hitt, supra. Copyright trolling clogs the courts with facetious lawsuits and targets vulnerable individuals who eventually acquiesce to legal demands. Moreover, trolls use courtrooms as a means to generate profit as opposed to pursuing legitimate litigation. See Hitt, supra.  

Copyright trolls are not limited to the adult film industry; smaller independent filmmakers have also engaged in similar tactics to Strike 3. See Copyright Trolls, EFF, https://www.eff.org/issues/copyright-trolls (last visited Mar. 8, 2026). In 2018, a copyright holder to a film brought a claim against an individual for “direct and contributory copyright infringement.” Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Gonzales, 901 F.3d 1144, 1145 (9th Cir. 2018). Much like Strike 3, Cobbler “identified an IP address” where a user supposedly “downloaded and distributed” the film. Id at 1145. Following a court subpoena, Comcast identified the subscriber of the service associated with the IP address as Thomas Gonzales. Id. However, the court held that an individual’s status as a “registered subscriber of an infringing IP address” is not viable for sustaining a direct infringement claim. Cobbler Nevada, 901 F.3d at 1145. Moreover, “without allegations of intentional encouragement or inducement of infringement,” Cobbler could not claim contributory infringement. Id. Due to Gonzales operating what was essentially an adult foster care home with accessible internet service to both visitors and residents, without comprehensive understanding of the internet activity taking place, his mere failure to monitor the home’s internet service was insufficient to establish contributory infringement. Id. at 1148.  

As opportunistic companies continue to utilize these tactics, one question remains: can ISPs be held contributorily liable for their users’ infringing activity? See Kevin J. Hickey, Supreme Court to Examine Liability of Internet Service Providers for Their Users’ Copyright Infringement, Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11350. While the Copyright Act does not provide a clear guideline for what constitutes contributory infringement, a handful of Supreme Court cases offer insight into how a court may determine liability. See id. The Supreme Court concluded in Sony Corp. of America that the selling of a device “capable of substantial non-infringing uses” is not grounds for a contributory infringement claim if the device is “widely used for legitimate purposes.” Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 418, 442 (1984). In Grokster, the Supreme Court held that “mere knowledge of infringing potential or of actual infringing uses would not be enough [in this case] to subject a distributor to liability.” Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 916, 937 (2005). Per the Court’s decision, imposing liability requires “purposeful, culpable expression and conduct.” Id.  

Courts continue to review contributory copyright infringement claims. In 2018, Sony Music and a number of record labels brought suit against Cox Communications, alleging that Cox was liable for contributory copyright infringement by failing to address its subscribers’ infringing activity. Sony Music Entertainment v. Cox Communications, Inc., 93 F.4th 227, 228 (4th Cir. 2024). In August 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Cox’s knowledge of its service being utilized as a conduit for copyright infringement activities could “support a finding that Cox materially contributed to copyright infringement occurring on its network and that its conduct was culpable.” Id. at 237. On December 1, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment on whether the Fourth Circuit erred in holding that an ISP could be found liable for “materially contributing” to copyright infringement due to its knowledge of its users’ conduct and subsequent failure to terminate service to infringing users. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/cox-communications-inc-v-sony-music-entertainment/ (last visited Mar. 8, 2026).  

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Sony v. Cox will have large-scale implications for ISPs and their users’ activities. As Cox argued, “[t]urning Internet providers into Internet police . . . will wreak havoc with the essential medium through which modern public engages in commerce and speech.” Oral Argument at 01:48, Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, (2025) (No. 24-171), https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/24-171 (last visited Mar. 8, 2026). Additionally, Justice Sotomayor contemplated the “two extremes” presented: either ISPs are not liable because they are not responsible for their users’ activities or ISPs are “materially supporting” infringement by not eliminating Internet access for thousands of people due to a singular infringer. Id. at 01:30:26.  

With the growing accessibility of the Internet, the sheer amount of available content makes the Internet a breeding ground for copyright infringement. Copyright trolls have exploited this ever-changing landscape and their reliance on ISPs is imperative to make substantial monetary gains. As the Supreme Court grapples with whether ISPs can potentially be held liable for their users’ conduct, the ruling may indicate that a revised version of the Copyright Act is necessary. Rather than relying on an amalgamation of federal court rulings, the amended Act should provide definitive guidelines about contributory copyright infringement.