US Copyright Small Claims Court Opens Its Doors Next Week. Two Questions Remain: Will Anyone Use It… And Is It Constitutional?

from the probably-no-to-both-questions dept

We’ve been talking about the problems of the US government setting up a copyright trolling small claims court for over a decade now. But, Congress finally passed a law to create one (with no debate and no hearings) by sneaking it into a “must-pass” funding bill at the end of the year in 2020. It’s taken a year and a half but the Copyright Office is finally set to launch it sometime next week.

Of course there are two big questions associated with it: um, will anyone actually use it and… is it constitutional? Let’s deal with the bigger question first. In the run up to the law passing, lots of people highlighted the constitutional problems of the bill, mainly in whether or not Congress can create adjudicative bodies outside of the courts. There is a decent history of the courts saying no, and those actually got a boost recently from the 5th Circuit (which, yes, is all kinds of nutty most of the time) in the Jarkesy case which effectively argued that the SEC’s administrative law judges violate the Constitution, as taking away the right to a jury trial via an Article III court. Possibly the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) tries to get around that with its “opt-out” process, but given the way conservative judges seem not just eager, but willing to tear down the administrative state, I can see a pretty clear path to this Supreme Court invalidating the entire CCB.

Again, the way this works is that a copyright registrant (one small difference is that in the CCB you can bring a claim while having just registered, while federal court, as of recently, requires you to have the registration accepted, so the CCB applies to more than just “copyright holder”) can go to the CCB rather than a court, and try to get an alleged infringer to pay up. The cost of filing will be between $40 and $60, and the “small claims” part limits the damages to $30,000 maximum (which can obviously still be a fairly steep bill for someone).

There is an attempt to limit a trolling industry developing here (one of the big concerns about the bill) in that there are some weird, and seemingly arbitrary, limits on filings. Eric Goldman summarizes the filing limits here:

A party, “including a corporate claimant’s parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates,” can initiate up to 30 cases in a 12 month period. A solo lawyer may bring no more than 40 CCB cases in a 12 month period, and a law firm is limited to 80 cases in a 12 month period. Defendant opt-outs still count towards the cap.

And, yes, there is that opt-out system, where, if you are a defendant in such a case, you can opt-out of the system and hope the plaintiff doesn’t escalate things to the actual courts. Though if you miss deadlines, you may be stuck in the CCB process. Goldman notes that these limits may also serve to limit the overall usefulness of the CCB entirely:

The Copyright Office raised the cap for plaintiffs, but my prior question stands: do these numbers make it economically viable for any plaintiff or lawyer to specialize in the idiosyncratic CCB procedures? If not, a copyright owner or law firm may have better economies of scale in consolidating all cases in federal court, where there are no volume caps, more discovery, and bigger potential damages. Also, I still don’t know whether the Copyright Office can limit the number of cases a lawyer can bring, because this implicates clients’ choice of counsel.

Goldman also notes some other concerns — concerns that have been raised for a while now:

  • the low filing cost and simplified procedures will invite unmeritorious claims that will prompt defendants to accept low-value settlements rather than fight.
  • plaintiffs will use their filing of a CCB claim (or passing the screening test) to scare defendants into accepting unwarranted settlements.
  • Dubious service by unsophisticated plaintiffs will lead to bogus default judgments.

Basically, there are all sorts of things that could go wrong here. Or no one might use it. Or someone may challenge the whole mess as unconstitutional. Who the hell knows? Which… is not necessarily a strong argument for regulations. But, either way, we’re about to find out. My guess is that it will get used, will be used somewhat abusively by some — most likely photographers — looking to shake down people who innocently reuse a photo on a website, but won’t be used widely enough for it to justify its existence or the costs to set it all up.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “US Copyright Small Claims Court Opens Its Doors Next Week. Two Questions Remain: Will Anyone Use It… And Is It Constitutional?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:


A solo lawyer may bring no more than 40 CCB cases in a 12 month period, and a law firm is limited to 80 cases in a 12 month period.

1) what is the cost of incorporating a law firm?
2) how many law firms may a solo lawyer be a member of?
3) how many settlements may a lawyer get, who threatens CCB enforcement?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

I would like someone to explain how even 30K for downloading a single work makes any sense, isn’t ridiculous & unconstitutional.

Even in the imaginations of lost sales, the lost sale was $30 (just for simplicity), demanding damages 1000 fold makes sense & doesn’t seem crazy?

The next question is how can a troll abuse this “court” to just get names?
Lets look at the MM model shall we, they file a small claims get persons name for 1 work, then win or lose they can then bring an actions in real court because MM works are always packed in large groups & they already have “proof” the target got 1 so as its a combo package they got them all.

I feel sick to my stomach that I was able to do that so quickly… i need a shower.

PaulT (profile) says:


Remember that some people have tried to claim that the actual lost sales from piracy equal more money than actually exists. Then, remember that it’s usually the people whose product failed that make the most noise about piracy being the reason for their failure.

I suppose that in theory the damages for “lost sales” is that high because people could be infringing on, say, a piece of bespoke commercial software that attracts thousands of dollars a year in licence fees, but we all know it will in reality be used mainly for individual songs, videos and images that cost way less.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It should be noted that the big opposition breifs 4-5 years ago all cited the years and years of cases it had taken before the courts wised up to claims the account holder was the infringer, and the long chain of precedent that has been decided to begin to reign in abuse of the courts.

None of that is binding on the copyright small claims “court”.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...