Category: Uncategorized

What happens if you get served with a Strike 3 Summons?

Posted on by JAntonelli

By Attorney Paul Sanders

Starting in 2025, we’ve seen a trend where Strike 3 Holdings has begun doubling its damage demands from $750 to $1,500 per infringement for defendants who ignore subpoenas and later get served with a Summons. In many cases, the company starts with a $50,000 initial settlement demand, regardless of how many alleged downloads are at issue. This approach appears to be designed to pressure defendants into quick settlements rather than protracted legal fights.

Strike 3 Holdings Now Demands Higher Damages After Summons

Over the past year, Strike 3 Holdings has quietly shifted its approach in copyright infringement lawsuits. The adult film company, known for its aggressive enforcement tactics, now seeks heightened damages from defendants who fail to respond early in the process.

Previously, typical settlement demands hovered around $750 per alleged infringement, roughly the statutory minimum under U.S. copyright law. But that number appears to be changing dramatically once a defendant ignores a subpoena and is served with a Summons.

From $750 to $1,500 Per Infringement

If a defendant fails to act after receiving a subpoena, Strike 3 often escalates its claims. Once the lawsuit progresses to a summons, the company’s demands appear to be doubling to $1,500 per alleged infringement.

Even more concerning, many defendants are now seeing flat settlement demands of $50,000 or more, regardless of how many files are alleged to have been downloaded. This approach is clearly meant to pressure defendants into quick settlements rather than protracted legal fights.

Why Ignoring a Strike 3 Holdings Subpoena Can Be Costly

The shift underscores an important point: ignoring early legal notices in a Strike 3 case can make things significantly more expensive. Once you’ve been formally served, your options narrow and your bargaining power diminishes.

Early engagement, ideally through an attorney who is experienced in Strike 3’s tactics, can often result in lower settlement amounts and better legal outcomes.

What Defendants Should Do Next

If you’ve received a Summons in a Strike 3 Holdings case, don’t panic, but don’t ignore it either.

Here’s what to do next:

  • Consult an attorney immediately. We offer a free, 30-minute consultation to discuss the specifics of your case, as well as the .
  • Avoid direct contact with Strike 3’s legal team until you’ve gotten legal advice.
  • Act quickly. The sooner you respond, the better your chances of keeping costs down.

Strike 3 Holdings appears to be raising the stakes.

Ignoring a subpoena can lead to higher damage claims, larger settlement demands, and a tougher legal battle once a Summons is issued.

Schedule a Consultation

The Luck of The Judicial Draw – Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins Denies Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s Attempt to Keep Defendant’s Identity Anonymous to the Public

Posted on by JAntonelli

By Jeffrey Antonelli, Attorney

In a case filed by Strike 3 Holdings attorney Jeremy Thompson in the Northern District of Illinois, the Court denied the movie company’s motion to file under seal Unredacted Versions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. 1:25-cv-07277.

On June 27, 2025, Strike 3 Holdings filed a Complaint against JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.72.239.49 alleging Defendant violated the US Copyright Act by downloading, copying, and distributing its movies using BitTorrent.

On July 7th, it obtained leave of Court to serve Comcast Cable a Subpoena to reveal the identity of the Subscriber.

On September 10th, it filed a Status Report:

“Plaintiff served the subpoena… and received the ISP’s response… [and] it was determined that the subscriber was the true Defendant. Plaintiff is [] amending its Complaint to name and serve the appropriate Defendant.”

On September 18th, it filed a motion to file under seal Unredacted Versions of its First Amended Complaint.

Judge Jenkins denied the motion:

“Neither a redacted nor pseudonymous filing is necessary or justified [under] Seventh Circuit caselaw.…. The court is not persuaded that the circumstances described in Plaintiff’s filing are truly exceptional…Plaintiff must refile its amended complaint without redactions or the use of a “Doe” pseudonym. Any summons or return of service should be publicly filed on the docket as well.”

Then the movie company filed a “First Amended Complaint” – without using the Defendant real name.

Judge Jenkins noticed, entering this Order: “The clerk shall update the case caption to reflect that the Defendant is [DEFENDANT’S REAL NAME]*. The court was clear that Doe is no longer appropriate given the results of early discovery.”

*Antonelli Law® is withholding the name of the Defendant, even though Defendant’s name is revealed in the court filings.

The following day a Summons was issued.

At the onset of Strike 3 Holdings’ national litigation in 2017 it routinely filed Amended Complaints with Defendants’ real names. Antonelli Law routinely filed motions to proceed anonymously to protect clients’ identities.

Pushback, including one judge calling the practice “legal extortion” to pressure Defendants to settle, led Strike 3 Holdings to seek permission to file Amended Complaints with Defendants’ names under seal. We and thousands of targeted Defendants appreciate that.

Nearly all federal judges grant the motions because being accused of wrongfully obtaining adult movies can lead to unwarranted consequences when the Defendant is innocent.

Unfortunately this lawsuit was assigned to a judge unpersuaded being accused of torrenting adult movies justifies litigating the case anonymously.

Illinois Subpoenas Filed as Strike 3 Holdings Releases More Claims

Posted on by JAntonelli

Strike 3 Holdings Files New Cases in Illinois

If you’ve received a subpoena from your internet service provider about Strike 3 Holdings, do not ignore it. Please visit our main Strike 3 Holdings page for all the information you need to know about Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits. This blog is dedicated to case updates.

Looking for details on your case? Use PACER, the public tool for accessing court records.

New Strike 3 Holdings Illinois Cases:

1:2025cv08844 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.176.207.182
1:2025cv08828 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.111.105.169
1:2025cv08830 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.62.230.125
1:2025cv08833 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.194.161.34
1:2025cv08839 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.176.138.212
1:2025cv08842 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.22.10.198
1:2025cv08955 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.168.18.236
1:2025cv08958 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.239.113.252
1:2025cv08959 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.212.54.215
1:2025cv08961 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.50.79.161
1:2025cv08962 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 149.75.164.208
1:2025cv08965 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.184.42.32
1:2025cv08966 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 208.59.225.2
1:2025cv08843 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.184.72.199
1:2025cv10606 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.206.38.84
1:2025cv08953 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.29.7.124
1:2025cv10608 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 209.122.85.253
1:2025cv10609 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.136.158.127
1:2025cv10610 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.194.65.195
1:2025cv10611 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.36.158.67
1:2025cv10614 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.201.176.7
1:2025cv10617 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.12.87.152
1:2025cv10619 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.136.211.71
1:2025cv10620 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.8.19.43
1:2025cv10621 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.46.44.30
1:2025cv10622 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.228.10.218
1:2025cv10623 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.51.204.208
1:2025cv10678 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.247.111.9
1:2025cv10687 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.246.63.230
1:2025cv10693 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.184.105.118
1:2025cv10696 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.12.189.27
1:2025cv10699 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.14.241.9
1:2025cv10701 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 205.178.98.252
1:2025cv10702 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.157.161.47
1:2025cv10703 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.14.26.69
1:2025cv10705 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.175.154.197
1:2025cv10706 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.44.241.102
1:2025cv10708 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 208.59.164.59
1:2025cv10709 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 207.181.228.91
1:2025cv08847 Strike 3 Holdings LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.223.81.64

32 New Joe Hand Promotions Cases Filed

Posted on by JAntonelli

New Joe Hand Promotions Inc. cases filed in Georgia, Ohio, Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Jersey, Texas, and Puerto Rico.

From the beginning of August through mid-October 2025, Joe Hands Promotions, Inc. has filed 32 new cases.

If you’ve received a subpoena about Joe Hand Promotions Inc., do not ignore it, please visit our main Joe Hand Promotions Inc. page for all the information you need to know about Joe Hand Promotions Inc. lawsuits. This is a blog dedicated to case updates.

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. has filed numerous federal copyright infringement lawsuits against businesses accused of illegally streaming Pay-Per-View events using residential subscriptions or pirate boxes. If you’re facing one of these lawsuits, Antonelli Law® can provide the legal expertise you need to navigate these complex claims. We’ll guide you through the process and work to protect your rights, ensuring the best possible outcome for your case.

Looking for details on your case? Use PACER, the public tool for accessing court records.

 Case Number  Case Title
7:2025cv00111 JOE HAND PROMOTIONS INC v. DON JULIOS LLC DBA DON JULIOS MEXICAN RESTAURANT et al
3:2025cv00317 Joe Hand Promotions Inc v. Bobo et al
2:2025cv03373 Joe Hand Promotions Incorporated v. GEGN LLC et al
2:2025cv03374 Joe Hand Promotions Incorporated v. Papi Gordos Hospitality LLC et al
2:2025cv03650 Joe Hand Promotions Incorporated v. Rogue Roots LLC et al
1:2025cv02888 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Super Kidz, LLC et al
2:2025cv01912 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Mint Hookah Lounge, LLC, et al
4:2025cv00151 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. JBC of Greenville, L.L.C. et al
3:2025cv00695 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. PT Media LLC et al
1:2025cv00222 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. La Enchilada LLC et al
2:2025cv14725 JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC. v. GUERRIER et al
2:2025cv15902 JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC. v. RAMIREZ et al
1:2025cv00565 Joe Hand Promotions Inc v. McGinnis et al
3:2025cv01493 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. et al v. Angry Bull Garage Grill
3:2025cv01494 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. et al v. Doe dba Bartopia et al
3:2025cv01495 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. et al v. Doe dba Burgeritas et al
3:2025cv01496 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. et al v. Doe dba Chango Bar et al
3:2025cv01497 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. et al v. Doe dba Hacienda Real et al
3:2025cv01498 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. et al v. Doe dba La Vida Bblata y Comedera et al
3:2025cv01499 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. et al v. Doe dba Sansebar et al
3:2025cv01500 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. et al v. Doe dba Tomate et al
4:2025cv00938 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Backstory Beverages Company, LLC et al
4:2025cv01156 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Truesdale & Govensky LLC et al
4:2025cv03608 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Smokin Joe’s Backyard LLC et al
4:2025cv03756 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Barra Brava 290 Sports & Grill LLC et al
3:2025cv00260 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Martinez et al
7:2025cv00448 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Tabu Group LLC et al
4:2025cv04486 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Moran et al
4:2025cv04715 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. La Corita Sports Cantina LLC et al
4:2025cv04922 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Know Heights No Limits, LLC et al

Kentucky Joins List of Strike 3 Holding Targets

Posted on by JAntonelli

Strike 3 Holdings Files New Cases in Kentucky

If you’ve received a subpoena from your internet service provider about Strike 3 Holdings, do not ignore it. Please visit our main Strike 3 Holdings page for all the information you need to know about Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits. This blog is dedicated to case updates.

Looking for details on your case? Use PACER, the public tool for accessing court records.

New Strike 3 Holdings Kentucky Cases:

3:2025cv00484 Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe