UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UMG RECORDINGS, INC., CAPITOL

RECORDS, LLC, ASYLUM RECORDS LLC, Civ. Case No. 24-cv-5285
ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION,
ATLANTIC RECORDS GROUP LLC, BAD BOY COMPLAINT
RECORDS LLC, BIG BEAT RECORDS INC.,
ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC., TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED
ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT LLC, FUELED
BY RAMEN LLC, LAVA RECORDS LLC,
MAVERICK RECORDING COMPANY,
NONESUCH RECORDS INC., RHINO
ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY, RHINO
ENTERTAINMENT LLC, ROADRUNNER
RECORDS, INC., RYKODISC, INC., WARNER
MUSIC INC., WARNER MUSIC
INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED,
WARNER MUSIC LATINA INC., WARNER
MUSIC NASHVILLE LLC, WARNER
RECORDS INC., WARNER RECORDS LLC,
WARNER RECORDS/QRI VENTURE, INC.,
WARNER RECORDS/SIRE VENTURES LLC,
ARISTA MUSIC, ARISTA RECORDS, LLC,
LAFACE RECORDS, LLC, SONY MUSIC
ENTERTAINMENT, SONY MUSIC
ENTERTAINMENT US LATIN LLC, ULTRA
RECORDS, LLC, VOLCANO
ENTERTAINMENT III, LLC, ZOMBA
RECORDING LLC, AND ABKCO MUSIC &
RECORDS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.,

VERIZON SERVICES CORP., AND CELLCO
PARTNERSHIP (D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS)

Defendants.
 PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs UMG Recordings, Inc. and Capitol Records, LLC (collectively, “UMG” or the

“Universal Plaintiffs”); Plaintiffs Asylum Records LLC, Atlantic Recording Corporation, Atlantic

Records Group LLC, Bad Boy Records LLC, Big Beat Records Inc., Elektra Entertainment Group

Inc., Elektra Entertainment LLC, Fueled by Ramen LLC, Lava Records LLC, Maverick Recording

Company, Nonesuch Records Inc., Rhino Entertainment Company, Rhino Entertainment LLC,

Roadrunner Records, Inc., Rykodisc, Inc., Warner Music Inc., Warner Music International

Services Limited, Warner Music Latina Inc., Warner Music Nashville LLC, Warner Records Inc.,

Warner Records LLC, Warner Records/QRI Venture, Inc., and Warner Records/SIRE Ventures

LLC (collectively, “WMG” or the “Warner Plaintiffs”); Plaintiffs Arista Music, Arista Records,

LLC, LaFace Records, LLC, Sony Music Entertainment, Sony Music Entertainment US Latin

LLC, Ultra Records, LLC, Volcano Entertainment III, LLC, and Zomba Recording LLC

(collectively, “SME” or the “Sony Plaintiffs”); and ABKCO Music & Records, Inc. (“ABKCO,”

and together with the Universal Plaintiffs, the Warner Plaintiffs, and the Sony Plaintiffs, the

“Record Companies” or “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys Oppenheim + Zebrak, LLP,

for their Complaint against defendants Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Services Corp., and

Cellco Partnership (d/b/a Verizon Wireless) (collectively, “Verizon” or “Defendants”), allege, on

personal knowledge as to matters relating to themselves and on information and belief as to all

other matters, as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Verizon is one of the largest Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) in the country and

knowingly provides its high-speed service to a massive community of online pirates, who it knows

repeatedly use that service to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights. Over the past few years alone,

2
Plaintiffs sent Verizon hundreds of thousands of copyright infringement notices. Those notices

identify specific subscribers on Verizon’s network stealing Plaintiffs’ sound recordings through

peer-to-peer (“P2P”) file-sharing networks that are notorious hotbeds for copyright infringement.

While Verizon is famous for its “Can you hear me now?” advertising campaign, it has intentionally

chosen not to listen to complaints from copyright owners. Instead of taking action in response to

those infringement notices as the law requires, Verizon ignored Plaintiffs’ notices and buried its

head in the sand. Undeterred, infringing subscribers identified in Plaintiffs’ notices continued to

use Verizon’s services to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights with impunity. Meanwhile, Verizon

continued to provide its high-speed service to thousands of known repeat infringers so it could

continue to collect millions of dollars from them.

2. Plaintiffs bring this action against Verizon for contributory and vicarious copyright

infringement. Verizon has knowingly contributed to, and reaped substantial profits from, massive

copyright infringement committed by tens of thousands of its subscribers. By ignoring Plaintiffs’

notices and its own legal obligations, Verizon facilitated its subscribers’ infringement of Plaintiffs’

copyrights through the continued provision of its high-speed Internet service to known repeat

infringers.

3. Plaintiffs are record companies or recorded music businesses that produce,

manufacture, distribute, sell, and license commercial sound recordings both in the United States

and internationally. Through their enormous investments of money, time, and exceptional creative

efforts, Plaintiffs and the recording artists they represent have developed and/or distributed some

of the world’s most famous music. Their investments and creative efforts have shaped the musical

landscape as we know it, both in the United States and around the world. As a result, Plaintiffs

own and/or control exclusive rights to many of the most popular sound recordings performed by

3
classic artists and contemporary superstars, including The Rolling Stones, Ariana Grande, Bob

Dylan, Bruno Mars, Elvis Presley, Dua Lipa, Drake, and many more.

4. Verizon markets and sells high-speed Internet services to consumers nationwide.

Through the provision of those services, Verizon contributed to and profited from pervasive

copyright infringement by its subscribers on P2P file-sharing networks. Verizon’s contribution to

its subscribers’ infringement is both willful and extensive, and it renders Verizon equally liable

for that infringement. Indeed, for years, Verizon deliberately refused to take action to prevent its

customers from using its Internet services to infringe others’ copyrights, including Plaintiffs’

copyrights—even after Verizon was put on notice of particular customers engaging in specific,

repeated acts of infringement.

5. Since early 2020, Plaintiffs’ representatives have sent more than 340,000

infringement notices to Verizon. Those notices clearly and unambiguously advised Verizon of its

subscribers’ blatant and systematic use of Verizon’s Internet service to illegally download, copy,

and distribute Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings through the P2P network known as

BitTorrent.

6. The scope of repeat infringement on Verizon’s network is staggering. Thousands

of Verizon subscribers were the subject of 20 or more notices from Plaintiffs, and more than 500

subscribers were the subject of 100 or more notices. One particularly egregious Verizon subscriber

was single-handedly the subject of 4,450 infringement notices from Plaintiffs alone.

7. Verizon acknowledged that it received these notices of infringement sent by

Plaintiffs’ representatives. Yet rather than taking any steps to address its customers’ illegal use of

its network, Verizon deliberately chose to ignore Plaintiffs’ notices, willfully blinding itself to that

information and prioritizing its own profits over its legal obligations.

4
 8. It is well-established law that if a party materially assists someone it knows is

engaging in copyright infringement, that party is fully liable for the infringement as if it had

infringed directly. Further, when a party has a direct financial interest in the infringing activity,

and the right and practical ability to stop or limit it, that party also faces liability. Flouting those

basic responsibilities, Verizon deliberately turned a blind eye to its subscribers’ infringement.

Verizon failed to terminate or otherwise take any meaningful action against the accounts of repeat

infringers of which it was aware. Instead, Verizon routinely thumbed its nose at Plaintiffs by

continuing to provide its service to subscribers it knew to be serially infringing Plaintiffs’

copyrighted sound recordings. In reality, Verizon operated its service as an attractive tool and safe

haven for infringement.

9. Verizon has derived an obvious and direct financial benefit from its subscribers’

infringement. The unlimited ability to download and distribute Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works

through Verizon’s service has served as a draw for Verizon to attract, retain, and charge higher

fees to infringing subscribers. By failing to terminate the accounts of specific recidivist infringers

known to Verizon, Verizon obtained a direct financial benefit from those subscribers’ continuing

infringing activity. That financial benefit included improper revenue that Verizon would not have

received had it appropriately shut down those accounts as well as the costs that Verizon saved by

failing to implement an effective repeat infringer program. In other words, Verizon decided not

to terminate repeat infringers because it wanted to maintain the revenue generated from those

subscribers’ accounts.

10. To be clear, the infringing activity of Verizon’s subscribers that is the subject of

Plaintiffs’ claims, and for which Verizon is secondarily liable, all occurred after Verizon received

multiple notices of each subscriber’s infringing activity. Plaintiffs seek damages for infringement

5
of their sound recordings by Verizon subscribers after those particular subscribers were identified

to Verizon in multiple infringement notices.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. This is a civil action in which Plaintiffs seek damages for copyright infringement

under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., and the Music Modernization Act, 17 U.S.C. §

1401.

12. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ copyright

infringement claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).

13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Verizon pursuant to New York Civil

Practice Law and Rule (“CPLR”) 301. Verizon’s official headquarters and Board of Directors are

located in New York, it has consented to jurisdiction in the state in a tolling agreement entered

into between the parties, and it has pervasive corporate ties to the state that are sufficient to justify

the imposition of general jurisdiction here.

14. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Verizon pursuant to CPLR 302.

Verizon transacts business within New York to supply Internet service to customers in this state.

In addition, Verizon has deliberately exploited the New York market, establishing network

operations in this district, selling its services to New York residents, and advertising its Internet

service to potential subscribers in the state. Verizon has committed tortious acts within New York,

including providing Internet service to New York subscribers who used Verizon’s network to

directly and repeatedly infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights; continuing to provide Internet service to,

and failing to suspend or terminate the accounts of, New York customers, even after receiving

multiple notices of their infringing activity; advertising its high-speed Internet service in New York

to serve as a draw for subscribers who sought faster download speeds to facilitate their direct and

6
repeated infringements; and/or responding or failing to respond to repeated notices of copyright

infringement directed to infringing subscribers located in the state. Verizon also has caused injury

to Plaintiffs in this state by allowing its customers to use Verizon’s network to systematically

infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights, all while deriving billions of dollars in revenue (including over

$130 billion in 2023 alone)1 from interstate commerce.

15. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400.

PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR COPYRIGHTED SOUND RECORDINGS

16. Plaintiffs are the copyright owners of, and/or control exclusive rights with respect

to, millions of sound recordings, including many recorded by some of the most prolific and well-

known recording artists throughout the world.

17. Plaintiff UMG Recordings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place

of business at 2220 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404.

18. Plaintiff Capitol Records, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its

principal place of business at 2220 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404.

19. Plaintiff ABKCO Music & Records, Inc. is a New York corporation with its

principal place of business at 85 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10003.

20. Plaintiff Asylum Records LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its

principal place of business at 777 S. Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90021.

21. Plaintiff Atlantic Recording Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its

principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.

1
Verizon Communications Inc., Form 10-K (Feb. 9, 2024), available at
https://quotes.quotemedia.com/data/downloadFiling?webmasterId=104600&ref=318048243&ty
pe=HTML&formType=424B2&formDescription=Prospectus+%5BRule+424%28b%29%282%2
9%5D&dateFiled=2024-06-17&cik=0000732712.

7
 22. Plaintiff Atlantic Records Group LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with

its principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.

23. Plaintiff Bad Boy Records LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its

principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.

24. Plaintiff Big Beat Records Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.

25. Plaintiff Elektra Entertainment Group Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its

principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.

26. Plaintiff Elektra Entertainment LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with

its principal place of business 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.

27. Plaintiff Fueled by Ramen LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its

principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.

28. Plaintiff Lava Records LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its

principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.

29. Plaintiff Maverick Recording Company is a California general partnership with its

principal place of business at 777 S. Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90021.

30. Plaintiff Nonesuch Records Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place

of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.

31. Plaintiff Rhino Entertainment Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal

place of business at 777 S. Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90021.

32. Plaintiff Rhino Entertainment LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its

principal place of business at 777 S. Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90021.

8
 33. Plaintiff Roadrunner Records, Inc. is a New York corporation with its principal

place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.

34. Plaintiff Rykodisc, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of

business at 777 S. Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90021.

35. Plaintiff Warner Music Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.

36. Plaintiff Warner Music International Services Limited is a limited liability

company, organized and existing under the laws of England and Wales, with its principal place of

business at 27 Wrights Lane, London, England.

37. Plaintiff Warner Music Latina Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal

place of business at 555 Washington Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida 33139.

38. Plaintiff Warner Music Nashville LLC is a Tennessee limited liability company

with its principal place of business at 20 Music Square East, Nashville, Tennessee 37203.

39. Plaintiff Warner Records Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business at 777 S. Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90021.

40. Plaintiff Warner Records LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its

principal place of business at 777 S. Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90021.

41. Plaintiff Warner Records/QRI Venture, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its

principal place of business at 777 S. Santa Fe Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90021.

42. Plaintiff Warner Records/SIRE Ventures LLC is a Delaware limited liability

company with its principal place of business at 1633 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.

43. Plaintiff Arista Music is a New York partnership with its principal place of business

at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.

9
 44. Plaintiff Arista Records, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its

principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.

45. Plaintiff LaFace Records, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its

principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.

46. Plaintiff Sony Music Entertainment is a Delaware general partnership, the partners

of which are citizens of New York and Delaware. Sony Music Entertainment’s headquarters and

principal place of business are located at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.

47. Plaintiff Sony Music Entertainment US Latin LLC is a Delaware limited liability

company with its principal place of business at 3390 Mary Street, Suite 220, Coconut Grove,

Florida 33133.

48. Plaintiff Ultra Records, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its

principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.

49. Plaintiff Volcano Entertainment III, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company

with its principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.

50. Plaintiff Zomba Recording LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its

principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010.

51. Plaintiffs own and/or control in whole or in part the copyrights and/or exclusive

U.S. rights in innumerable popular sound recordings, including at the time of the infringements at

issue here, and including the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A, which are illustrative and non-

exhaustive. All of the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A have been registered with the U.S.

Copyright Office or, for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, identified on schedules

filed with the U.S. Copyright Office pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1401.

10
 VERIZON AND ITS ACTIVITIES

52. Defendant Verizon Communications Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is

headquartered at 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036.

53. Defendant Verizon Services Corp. is a Delaware corporation that is headquartered

at 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036.

54. Defendant Cellco Partnership (d/b/a Verizon Wireless) is a Delaware corporation

that is headquartered at 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036.

55. Verizon Communications Inc. is one of the leading providers of technology and

communications services in the United States and in the world. Through its subsidiaries, including

Verizon Services Corp. and Cellco Partnership (d/b/a Verizon Wireless), Verizon

Communications Inc. provides wireless and wireline data and Internet services to millions of

residential and business subscribers around the country.

56. As of December 2023, Verizon’s consumer group, which focuses primarily on

residential subscribers, provided 115 million wireless retail connections, 9 million broadband

connections, and 3 million video connections. Verizon also provided business customers with

approximately 30 million wireless retail connections and approximately 2 million total broadband

connections.

57. At all pertinent times, Verizon’s customers have paid substantial subscription fees

for access to Verizon’s high-speed Internet service, with Verizon offering a tiered pricing structure

whereby a subscriber can purchase faster downloading speeds for a higher monthly fee.

58. Many of Verizon’s customers are motivated to subscribe to Verizon’s service

because it allows them to download music and other copyrighted content—including unauthorized

content—as fast as possible. Accordingly, in its consumer marketing materials, Verizon touts the

11
speed at which its customers can download content. For example, Verizon has stated, “You can

download an HD movie before the popcorn is ready with speeds nearing a gigabit, just to give you

an idea how fast that is.”2 In the same consumer marketing material, Verizon also states that it is

“one of the only internet service providers to offer nearly matching download and upload speeds

on most plans, which is a major advantage when you’re . . . sharing large files.”3

59. Verizon has consistently and actively engaged in sophisticated network and

customer management practices to suit its own purposes. This includes monitoring for, and taking

action against, spam and other unwanted activity that might otherwise interfere with its provision

of Internet service to its subscribers. At the same time, Verizon has gone out of its way not to take

action against subscribers engaging in repeated copyright infringement, at the expense of copyright

owners, ultimately forcing Plaintiffs to bring this action.

60. Verizon’s failure to take action against subscribers using its network to engage in

repeated copyright infringement is contrary to its own policies. Indeed, Verizon’s “Copyright

Infringement/Repeat Infringer Policy” prohibits subscribers from using “Verizon’s systems or

servers in any manner that constitutes an infringement of third party intellectual property rights,

under US copyright law,” and further states that, “[p]ursuant to Section 512 of the Digital

Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), it is Verizon’s policy to terminate the account of repeat

copyright infringers in appropriate circumstances.”4 Verizon’s “Acceptable Use Policy” (“AUP”)

reiterates that subscribers may not use Verizon’s network to infringe the intellectual property rights

2
Verizon Fios Home Internet webpage with FAQs, available at
https://www.verizon.com/home/internet/fios-fastest-internet/ (last accessed July 8, 2024).
3
Id.
4
Verizon Customer Agreement, available at https://www.verizon.com/about/terms-
conditions/verizon-customer-agreement (last accessed June 19, 2024).

12
of others, including copyright. The AUP refers to violations of “any third party’s copyright” as an

example of conduct “which may lead to termination of [a subscriber’s] Service.”5

61. While publicly stating that its customers may not use its network to infringe,

Verizon privately takes active steps to thwart copyright owners from informing Verizon about P2P

infringements by its customers. Verizon purports to accept infringement notices through two

avenues, but in reality, both are illusory and ineffective.

62. Through one channel, Verizon claims to allow copyright holders to send P2P

notices through a so-called “Anti-Piracy Cooperation Program,” but it has attached such onerous

conditions to participation that the program is rendered a nullity. Not only has Verizon required

participants to pay burdensome fees for simple, automated processes like Internet Protocol (“IP”)

address lookups and notice forwarding, but participants have been required to waive their

copyright claims, broadly indemnify Verizon, and, tellingly, keep the terms of the program

confidential. Verizon has also limited the number of notices it will forward pursuant to the

program.

63. For copyright owners unwilling to waive their rights and “pay-to-play,” Verizon

directs them to send email notices concerning P2P infringement to

CONDUITFORMNOTICES@verizon.com. Verizon publicly states that it “do[es] not review,

process, or otherwise take action on [P2P] notices . . . sent via email to any other Verizon email

inbox.”6 And yet Verizon plainly does not even review, process or otherwise take action on notices

sent by email to CONDUITFORMNOTICES@verizon.com. Verizon does not forward these

5
Id.
6
Copyright Infringement Claims and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), available
at https://www.verizon.com/support/residential/account/manage-account/security/copyright-
infringement-claims (last accessed June 20, 2024).

13
notices to subscribers or track the number of email notices sent regarding repeat infringing

subscribers. Verizon also arbitrarily caps the number of notices permitted per copyright holder at

this address—ironic, to say the least, given that Verizon ignored hundreds of thousands of

Plaintiffs’ notices to this email inbox.

64. At all pertinent times, Verizon knew that its subscribers routinely used its networks

for illegally downloading and uploading copyrighted works, especially sound recordings. As

described below, Plaintiffs repeatedly notified Verizon that thousands of its subscribers were

actively utilizing its service to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. Those notices gave Verizon

the specific identities of its subscribers engaged in copyright infringement, referred to by their

unique IP addresses. Verizon also received millions of notices from other copyright owners, some

of which undoubtedly addressed the same subscribers as Plaintiffs’ notices. Verizon thus knew

which particular subscribers engaged in repeat infringement and Verizon had the right and ability

to stop that infringement, including by suspending or terminating the accounts of repeat infringers.

Yet Verizon condoned its subscribers’ illegal activity because it profited from that activity and its

permissive stance toward that activity acted as a draw to attract and retain new and existing

subscribers. Verizon’s customers, in turn, continued using Verizon’s services to infringe

Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.

65. Verizon undoubtedly recognized that if it terminated or otherwise prevented its

repeat infringer subscribers from using its service to infringe, or made it less attractive for such

use, Verizon would enroll fewer new subscribers, lose existing subscribers, and ultimately lose

revenue. For those account holders and subscribers who wanted to download files illegally at

faster speeds, Verizon provided the means for them to do so in exchange for higher subscription

fees. Indeed, Verizon offered “tiered” service plans in which subscribers could pay less for a

14
lower-tier plan with limits on upload and download speeds and the amount of data available

monthly, or alternatively, subscribers could pay more for a higher-tier plan with unlimited data

and faster upload and download speeds. In other words, the greater the bandwidth or speed its

subscribers required for illegally downloading and uploading copyrighted works, the more money

Verizon made.

THE GLOBAL PEER-TO-PEER PIRACY PROBLEM

66. While the digital age has brought many benefits, it has also facilitated the

unprecedented online piracy of copyrighted works. Indeed, federal courts have recognized the

“detrimental effect of file-sharing” through P2P networks and the “staggering” level of copyright

infringement on the Internet. Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2010)

(quoting Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 923 (2005)).

67. Use of P2P distribution systems is the dominant method of engaging in the

unauthorized downloading and distribution of copyrighted music over the Internet. P2P is a

generic term used to refer to a decentralized network of users whereby each Internet-connected

participant (i.e., a “peer” or a “node”) can act as both a supplier and consumer of content files.

Early P2P services, such as Napster and KaZaA, have been replaced by even more robust and

efficient systems, most notably a protocol called “BitTorrent.” The online piracy committed via

BitTorrent is stunning in nature, speed, and scope. Utilizing a BitTorrent client—essentially a tool

that manages the uploading and downloading of files through BitTorrent technology—persons

connected to the Internet can locate, access, and download copyrighted content from other peers

in the blink of an eye. They download copyrighted music from other network users, usually total

strangers, and end up with complete digital copies of any music they desire—without payment to

copyright owners or creators.

15
 68. BitTorrent is uniquely efficient in the way it facilitates illegal file transfers. On

earlier P2P networks, a user wanting to download a music file would have to locate another

Internet-connected peer with the desired file and download the entire file from that peer.

BitTorrent facilitates much faster downloading by breaking each file into pieces, allowing users to

download different pieces of content simultaneously from different peers. It works on a “tit-for-

tat” system, through which users must upload (i.e., distribute) files in order to download files.

Thus, the BitTorrent system’s design ensures that users begin disseminating content the instant

they start downloading it. This means that, at any given time, each user connected to the Internet

can be both downloading and uploading different pieces of a file from, and to, multiple other users.

Once a user has downloaded all of the file pieces, the file is automatically reassembled into its

complete form.

69. BitTorrent has been and continues to be used widely as a vehicle to infringe

copyrighted music online, including during the period of infringements at issue here. As of August

2020, BitTorrent and uTorrent (another popular torrent client) had been downloaded and installed

over 2 billion times.7 The network intelligence company Sandvine reported that in 2021,

BitTorrent accounted for nearly 10% of the total upstream volume of Internet traffic and nearly

3% of all Internet traffic globally.8 The continuing, extensive use of BitTorrent to infringe sound

recordings is borne out by the nearly 350,000 infringement notices Plaintiffs sent to Verizon.

7
BitTorrent Inc. Blog, “BitTorrent Crosses Historic 2 Billion Installations” (Aug. 11, 2020),
available at https://www.bittorrent.com/blog/2020/08/11/bittorrent-crosses-historic-2-billion-
installations (last accessed June 19, 2024).
8
Sandvine, “Phenomena: The Global Internet Phenomena Report” (Jan. 2022), available at
https://www.sandvine.com/global-internet-phenomena-report-2022 (last accessed June 19,
2024).

16
 70. Internet access is essential for P2P file-sharing, including via BitTorrent. In other

words, to download or upload files via BitTorrent, a person must have an Internet connection.

Faster download and upload speeds enable faster and more efficient copying and distribution of

files over BitTorrent and other P2P protocols. Repeat infringers—including Verizon subscribers

whom Plaintiffs and other rightsholders observed using BitTorrent to unlawfully copy and

distribute copyrighted works—are drawn to Verizon’s high-speed Internet service because they

can infringe copyright-protected music efficiently, extensively, and repeatedly, without

consequence. Because BitTorrent operates anonymously, it is impossible for copyright holders to

address P2P infringement on their own. The only user-identifying information available to

rightsholders monitoring P2P activity is a user’s IP address, and thus effective monitoring requires

ISP participation to match IP addresses to specific subscribers.

VERIZON’S PROVISION OF ITS INTERNET SERVICE

TO KNOWN, REPEAT INFRINGERS

71. Over the past 25 years, as P2P piracy became widespread, copyright owners have

employed many means in an attempt to curtail the massive theft of their works, including sending

copyright infringement notices to ISPs. Verizon has been keenly aware of those efforts, including

many very public lawsuits against other ISPs concerning music piracy through BitTorrent, as well

as the use of its own network for P2P piracy.

72. Copyright owners bear the burden—financially and logistically—of monitoring the

Internet to identify infringement of their works and notifying ISPs when they identify such

infringement on an ISP’s network. If ISPs want the benefit of a statutory safe harbor from

monetary damages under Section 512(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.

§ 512(a) (“DMCA” or “Section 512”), they must, among other things, adopt and reasonably

17
implement a policy providing for termination, in appropriate circumstances, of subscribers who

are repeat infringers. See 17 U.S.C. § 512(i).

73. Section 512 represents a “grand bargain” devised by Congress to encourage the

development and proliferation of the Internet, while also respecting the intellectual property rights

of copyright owners. Congress intended Section 512 to encourage “service providers and

copyright owners to cooperate to detect and deal with copyright infringements” online.9 In

enacting the DMCA, Congress determined that this approach—which expressly contemplates

termination of Internet service for repeat infringers—struck the appropriate balance between the

need to foster the development of the Internet and promote electronic commerce, and the need to

protect the intellectual property of copyright owners.

74. Upholding their end of the bargain that Congress struck with the DMCA, Plaintiffs

have been sending notices of copyright infringement to Verizon for years, identifying specific

instances of subscribers’ infringement through P2P activities. To ensure that Verizon received

those notices so it could identify the infringing subscribers and take appropriate action against

them, Plaintiffs sent their notices to both the email address that Verizon specifically provides for

P2P notices (CONDUITFORMNOTICES@verizon.com) and to Verizon’s DMCA Designated

Agent email address. Since February 2020, Plaintiffs alone have sent Verizon over 340,000

notices, detailing specific instances of specific Verizon subscribers using P2P protocols on the

Verizon network to download and distribute Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.

75. Plaintiffs’ trade association, the Recording Industry Association of America

(“RIAA”) engaged a vendor, OpSec Online LLC (formerly known as MarkMonitor, Inc.)

(“OpSec”), to detect infringements of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works on Verizon’s network and

9
H.R. Rep. 105-551 at 49; S. Rep. 105-190 at 20.

18
send infringement notices to Verizon. OpSec is a global leader in brand and content protection,

representing clients across a huge range of industries, as well as government agencies and law

enforcement. Using proprietary technology, OpSec’s system connected with Verizon subscribers

using P2P software and confirmed, in each instance: (1) that the subscriber was online; (2) that the

subscriber was running a file sharing program using the BitTorrent protocol; (3) that the subscriber

possessed a confirmed infringing file, identified by a unique “hash” value; and (4) that the

subscriber was in fact distributing the confirmed infringing file, identified by a unique “hash”

value, on Verizon’s network. OpSec also verified the file hashes to confirm that Plaintiffs’

copyrighted works were being distributed. Once OpSec had collected this evidence of

infringement, OpSec generated and sent a notice of infringement to Verizon.

76. Each infringement notice OpSec sent to Verizon on Plaintiffs’ behalf identified the

unique IP address assigned to each subscriber to Verizon’s network and the date and time the

infringing activity was detected. Only Verizon, as the provider of the technology and system used

to infringe, was in possession of the information required to match the IP address to a particular

subscriber, and to contact that subscriber or take other appropriate action. While Plaintiffs

undertook the burden and responsibility of monitoring Verizon’s network for infringement of

Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, only Verizon could take action against its subscribers for violating

Verizon’s own Copyright Infringement/Repeat Infringer Policy and AUP by infringing Plaintiffs’

copyrights.

77. Plaintiffs’ infringement notices provided Verizon with knowledge of clear and

unambiguous infringing activity by Verizon subscribers—that is, unauthorized downloading and

distribution of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. Verizon’s subscribers had no legal basis or

19
justification for downloading or distributing digital copies of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings to

thousands or millions of strangers over the Internet.

78. Apart from attesting to the sheer volume of the infringing activity on its network,

the infringement notices sent to Verizon identified specific subscribers who were flagrant and

serial infringers. The infringement notices identified thousands of Verizon subscribers engaged in

blatant and repeated infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, including over 500 subscribers

that were the subject of more than 100 infringement notices. The level of recidivism across repeat

infringers on Verizon’s network during the period of infringement at issue here is staggering. To

cite just a few specific examples:

• From March 2021 to at least August 2023, a Verizon subscriber with the IP
address 100.37.98.18 was identified in 4,450 infringement notices, sent on
at least 659 separate days.

• From August 2020 to at least December 2021, a Verizon subscriber with

the IP address 68.134.246.125 was identified in 2,703 infringement notices,
sent on at least 441 separate days.

• From March 2021 to at least August 2023, a Verizon subscriber with the IP
address 173.70.227.147 was identified in 2,068 infringement notices, sent
on at least 251 separate days.

These examples and many others amply illustrate that, rather than taking steps to meaningfully

curb infringement, Verizon simply turned a blind eye to the massive infringement on its network.

79. During all pertinent times, Verizon had the full legal right, obligation, and technical

ability to prevent or limit the infringements occurring on its network. Under Verizon’s AUP and

its Copyright Infringement/Repeat Infringer Policy, which its subscribers agreed to as a condition

of using Verizon’s Internet service, Verizon was empowered to exercise its right and ability to

suspend or terminate a subscriber’s Internet access. Verizon could do so for a variety of reasons,

including a subscriber’s copyright infringements. Verizon undoubtedly terminated numerous

subscribers for non-payment of their monthly fees for Internet and other services.

20
 80. Ignoring its policies, and receiving over 340,000 infringement notices from

Plaintiffs, as well as millions of similar notices from other copyright owners, Verizon knowingly

permitted specifically identified repeat infringers to continue to use its network to infringe. Rather

than disconnect the Internet access of blatant repeat infringers or take other steps to curtail their

infringement, Verizon knowingly continued to provide these subscribers with the Internet access

that enabled them to continue to illegally download and/or distribute Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works

unabated. Verizon’s provision of high-speed Internet service to known, repeat infringers

materially contributed to these direct infringements.

81. Verizon’s motivation for refusing to terminate or suspend the accounts of blatant

infringing subscribers is simple: Verizon valued corporate profits over its legal responsibilities.

Verizon is paid monthly fees directly by repeat infringing subscribers. Verizon is paid more when

subscribers need higher data speeds or plans, which repeat infringers often do given the amount of

data required for using BitTorrent and other P2P protocols. Verizon did not want to lose subscriber

revenue by terminating accounts of infringing subscribers. Retaining infringing subscribers

provided a direct financial benefit to Verizon. Nor did Verizon want to risk the possibility that

account terminations would make its service less attractive to other existing or prospective

customers. Moreover, Verizon was simply disinterested in devoting sufficient resources to

tracking repeat infringers, responding to infringement notices, and terminating accounts in

appropriate circumstances. Considering only its pecuniary gain, Verizon ignored and turned a

blind eye to flagrant, repeated violations by known specific subscribers using its service to

infringe, thus facilitating and multiplying the harm to Plaintiffs.

82. Verizon’s failure to take meaningful action against its infringing subscribers drew

subscribers engaging in Internet piracy to purchase Verizon’s services, so that those subscribers

21
could infringe Plaintiffs’ (and others’) copyrights and avoid obtaining that copyrighted content

through legitimate channels. Infringing subscribers were drawn to Verizon’s services both because

of its lax policies concerning copyright infringement and faster internet speeds that facilitated the

use of P2P protocols for those willing to pay more. Verizon fostered a safe haven for infringement

in light of its lax policies and thus encouraged its subscribers to infringe. The specific infringing

subscribers identified in Plaintiffs’ notices, including the particularly egregious infringers

identified above, knew that Verizon would not terminate their accounts despite receiving multiple

notices identifying them as infringers, and they remained Verizon subscribers so that they could

continue illegally downloading copyrighted works.

83. In short, Verizon provided high-speed Internet service to repeat infringers known

to Verizon to have repeatedly used its network to infringe Plaintiffs’ copyrights in blatant disregard

of Verizon’s legal obligations and its own public-facing end-user policies. Once Verizon received

Plaintiffs’ (and other rightsholders’) infringement notices regarding a subscriber with a particular

IP address, Verizon knew that its network was being used for unlawful purposes, and it had a

responsibility to act, both in accordance with federal law and its own policies. If Verizon had

suspended or terminated the service of known repeat infringers identified by Plaintiffs, Verizon

could have prevented further infringement. Indeed, Congress intended that the DMCA require

ISPs to alert their subscribers that, for “those who repeatedly or flagrantly abuse their access to the

Internet through disrespect for the intellectual property rights of others[,] . . . there is a realistic

threat of losing that access.”10 Verizon chose instead to contribute to, facilitate, and profit from

the repeated infringements of its subscribers.

10
S. Rep. 105-190 at 52; H.R. Rep. 105-551 at 61.

22
 84. The consequences of Verizon’s support of and profit from infringement are obvious

and stark. When Verizon’s subscribers use Verizon’s network to obtain infringing copies of

Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works illegally, that activity undercuts the legitimate music market,

depriving Plaintiffs and those recording artists and songwriters whose works they sell and license

of the compensation to which they are entitled.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Count I – Contributory Infringement

85. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1

through 84 as if fully set forth herein.

86. Plaintiffs own or exercise exclusive control in the U.S. over rights in the sound

recordings listed in Exhibit A, which represent an illustrative and non-exhaustive list of Plaintiffs’

works infringed by Verizon’s subscribers. All of the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A have

been duly registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or, for sound recordings fixed before February

15, 1972, submitted to and publicly indexed by the U.S. Copyright Office pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §

1401.

87. Verizon’s subscribers, using Internet access and services provided by Verizon, have

unlawfully and without authorization reproduced and distributed via BitTorrent thousands of

Plaintiffs’ sound recordings, including those listed on Exhibit A and many others.

88. The foregoing activity by Verizon’s subscribers constitutes direct infringement in

violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501, et seq. and the Music Modernization

Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1401.

89. Verizon is liable as a contributory infringer for the direct infringements described

above.

23
 90. Through Plaintiffs’ infringement notices and other means, Verizon had knowledge

that its network was being used to infringe Plaintiffs’ works on a massive scale, and also knew of

specific subscribers engaged in such repeated and flagrant infringement of specific works.

91. Verizon nevertheless facilitated, encouraged, and materially contributed to such

infringement by continuing to provide its services, network, and the facilities necessary for its

subscribers to commit repeated infringements. Verizon had the means to withhold that assistance

upon learning of specific infringing activity by specific users but failed to do so.

92. By purposefully ignoring and turning a blind eye to its subscribers’ flagrant and

repeated infringements, Verizon knowingly caused and materially contributed to the unlawful

reproduction and distribution of Plaintiffs’ works, including but not limited to those listed on

Exhibit A, in violation of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the copyright laws of the United States.

93. Each infringement of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings constitutes a separate and distinct

act of infringement. Plaintiffs’ claims of infringement against Verizon are timely because they all

fall within the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations set forth at 17 U.S.C. § 507, as extended by a

tolling agreement between the parties.

94. The foregoing acts of infringement by Verizon have been willful, intentional, and

purposeful, in disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Indeed, the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A

represent a non-exhaustive list of works infringed by Verizon’s subscribers after those particular

subscribers were identified to Verizon in multiple infringement notices.

95. As a direct and proximate result of Verizon’s willful infringement of Plaintiffs’

copyrights and other exclusive rights, Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, pursuant to 17

U.S.C. § 504(c), in an amount of up to $150,000 with respect to each work infringed.

24
Alternatively, at Plaintiffs’ election, Plaintiffs shall be entitled to their actual damages pursuant to

17 U.S.C. § 504(b), including Verizon’s profits from the infringements, as will be proven at trial.

96. Plaintiffs are also entitled to their attorneys’ fees and full costs pursuant to 17

U.S.C. § 505.

Count II – Vicarious Infringement

97. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1

through 84 as if fully set forth herein.

98. Plaintiffs own or exercise exclusive control over rights in the sound recordings

listed in Exhibit A, which represent an illustrative and non-exhaustive list of Plaintiffs’ works

infringed by Verizon’s subscribers. All of the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A have been duly

registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or, for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972,

submitted to and publicly indexed by the U.S. Copyright Office pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1401.

99. Verizon’s subscribers, using Internet access and services provided by Verizon, have

unlawfully and without authorization reproduced and distributed via BitTorrent thousands of

Plaintiffs’ sound recordings, including those listed on Exhibit A and many others.

100. The foregoing activity by Verizon’s subscribers constitutes direct infringement in

violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501, et seq. and the Music Modernization

Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1401.

101. Verizon is liable as a vicarious infringer for the direct infringements described

above.

102. Verizon has the legal and practical right and ability to supervise and control the

infringing activities that occur through the use of its network, including through the enforcement

of its AUP and its Copyright Infringement/Repeat Infringer Policy.

25
 103. At all relevant times, Verizon has had a financial interest in, and derived direct

financial benefit from, the infringing use of its network. Verizon has derived an obvious and direct

financial benefit from its customers’ infringement. The ability to use Verizon’s high-speed

Internet network and facilities to illegally download Plaintiffs’ works has served to draw, maintain,

and generate higher fees from paying subscribers to Verizon’s service. Among other financial

benefits, by failing to terminate the accounts of specific repeat infringers known to Verizon,

Verizon has profited from illicit revenue through user subscription fees that it would not have

otherwise received from repeat infringers and by drawing new subscribers to Verizon’s services

for the purpose of illegally downloading and distributing protected works. The specific infringing

subscribers identified in Plaintiffs’ notices, including the particularly egregious infringers

identified herein, knew Verizon would not terminate their accounts despite receiving multiple

notices identifying them as infringers, and they remained Verizon subscribers to continue illegally

downloading and distributing Plaintiffs’ works.

104. Verizon is vicariously liable for the unlawful reproduction and distribution of

Plaintiffs’ works, including but not limited to those listed on Exhibit A, in violation of Plaintiffs’

exclusive rights under the copyright laws of the United States.

105. Each infringement of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings constitutes a separate and distinct

act of infringement. Plaintiffs’ claims of infringement against Verizon are timely because they all

fall within the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations set forth at 17 U.S.C. § 507, as extended by a

tolling agreement between the parties.

106. The foregoing acts of infringement by Verizon have been willful, intentional, and

purposeful, in disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Indeed, the sound recordings listed on Exhibit A

26
represent a non-exhaustive list of works infringed by Verizon’s subscribers after those particular

subscribers were identified to Verizon in multiple prior infringement notices.

107. As a direct and proximate result of Verizon’s willful infringement of Plaintiffs’

copyrights and other exclusive rights, Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages, pursuant to 17

U.S.C. § 504(c), in an amount of up to $150,000 with respect to each work infringed.

Alternatively, at Plaintiffs’ election, Plaintiffs shall be entitled to their actual damages pursuant to

17 U.S.C. § 504(b), including Verizon’s profits from the infringements, as will be proven at trial.

108. Plaintiffs are also entitled to their attorneys’ fees and full costs pursuant to 17

U.S.C. § 505.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment from this Court against Verizon as follows:

a. For a declaration that Verizon willfully infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights;

b. For statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), in an amount up to the maximum

provided by law, arising from Verizon’s willful violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under

the U.S. Copyright Act or, in the alternative, at Plaintiffs’ election, Plaintiffs’ actual

damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), including Verizon’s profits from

infringement, in an amount to be proven at trial;

c. For an award of Plaintiffs’ costs in this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees,

pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505;

d. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the applicable rate on any monetary

award made part of the judgment against Verizon; and

e. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

27
 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury

of all issues that are so triable.

Dated: July 12, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Matthew J. Oppenheim
Matthew J. Oppenheim
Jeffrey M. Gould
Corey Miller
Keith Howell
OPPENHEIM + ZEBRAK, LLP
4530 Wisconsin Ave. NW, 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 621-9027
matt@oandzlaw.com
jeff@oandzlaw.com
corey@oandzlaw.com
khowell@oandzlaw.com
Alexander Kaplan
Carly K. Rothman
Lauren Bergelson
Bret Matera
OPPENHEIM + ZEBRAK, LLP
461 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 951-1156
alex@oandzlaw.com
carly@oandzlaw.com
lbergelson@oandzlaw.com
bmatera@oandzlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

28