Complaint Suggested a Massive Operation<\/h2>\n
Subscriptions were reportedly sold both in bulk to a network of resellers, and on an individual basis direct to end users. A claim reportedly made by Moy himself, that his network had \u201cover 500 sellers\u201d made it into the complaint. The allegation that Moy\u2019s service had over 450,000 users, apparently wasn\u2019t guesswork. DISH and Sling somehow gained direct access to Moy\u2019s IPTV management panel and saw the data for themselves.<\/p>\n
Even when one month subscriptions (credits) were sold to resellers for just $5 each, that\u2019s $2.25 million in monthly revenue; $27 million on an annual basis. On top of that eye watering amount, the complaint alleged that \u201cMoy held himself out as a Chicago-area law enforcement officer,\u201d when selling to customers, \u201cto mitigate potential concerns over the unlawfulness of the Service.\u201d<\/p>\n
Whatever the intent, there were no signs of mitigation in DISH and Sling\u2019s claim for damages; statutory damages up to $2,500 for each violation of the DMCA\u2019s anti-circumvention provisions (usually assessed on a per-subscriber basis), plus $100 for each day of violations under ECPA, or $10,000, whichever was greater.<\/p>\n
Moy Answers Complaint, Confidentiality Ensues<\/h2>\n
On January 27, 2025, Moy filed his answer to the complaint, admitting that he served as the sole manager of CLVPN and accepting that the Court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants.<\/p>\n
The remainder of the allegations and claims were either denied outright, or denied on the basis that the defendants lacked sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations.<\/p>\n
On the same date, an agreed confidentiality order was submitted to the court to ensure that sensitive information obtained during discovery \u2013 including how the content was obtained and details concerning Moy\u2019s business \u2013 wouldn\u2019t see the light of day.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"confidential-order\"](\"https:\/\/torrentfreak.com\/images\/confidential-order.png\")
<\/center> <\/p>\nEarly June 2024 it was reported that the parties had exchanged initial disclosures and written discovery, and there had been no disputes.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe parties have exchanged settlement positions, but do not request a settlement conference at this time,\u201d Magistrate Judge Beth W. Jantz reported.<\/p>\n
Defendants Run Out of Funds<\/h2>\n
Mid-August 2025, counsel for the defense filed an unopposed motion to withdraw. Noting that the parties had conducted settlement negotiations and extensive written discovery has been undertaken, the motion stated that the defendants no longer had \u201csufficient financial resources to continue the representation.\u201d<\/p>\n
The motion indicated that not only would the attorney not be paid for any further work, but was still owed for work already done. A motion filed by Moy late August in respect of future representation was swiftly denied by District Judge Edmond E. Chang.<\/p>\n
\u201cOn review of Defendant Moy\u2019s motion for attorney representation, the motion is denied without prejudice. First, the motion was not accompanied by a financial affidavit, even though the Court explained that requirement at the prior hearing,\u201d the Judge wrote.<\/p>\n
\u201cSecond, on review of the complaint and the stage of the case, right now a high-school graduate like Defendant Moy can defense this case adequately on his own. The alleged facts are detailed in the complaint and are straightforward, and the cited statutes for the three claims also have, as applicable to this case so far, straightforward elements.\u201d<\/p>\n
Parties Agree to Settle<\/h2>\n
The prospect of conducting an \u201cadequate\u201d solo defense in a case like this, against plaintiffs DISH and Sling, does seem a little optimistic. Fortunately, it appears that Moy was spared the experience.<\/p>\n
Last Friday, the parties filed a joint motion for final judgment and permanent injunction.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe parties entered into a confidential settlement in this case. Under that settlement, the parties have agreed to the Court\u2019s entry of a final judgment awarding statutory damages and a permanent injunction that enjoins Defendants from providing any infringing streaming service,\u201d the motion reads.<\/p>\n
The motion continues by noting that the permanent injunction and statutory damages are both authorized by the DMCA. For each violation of section 1201, statutory damages of not less than $200 or more than $2,500 are available for \u201ceach act of circumvention, device, product, component, offer, or performance of service.\u201d<\/p>\n
The final amount is less than the maximum, based on a \u201cconservative\u201d estimate that aligns with damages calculations deemed acceptable in previous DISH\/Sling lawsuits.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"settle-dish\"](\"https:\/\/torrentfreak.com\/images\/settle-dish.png\")
<\/center> <\/p>\n\u201cThe parties request that the Court enter the agreed final judgment and permanent injunction, which resolves all claims in this case, as doing so will conserve judicial resources and allow the parties to avoid the expense and other burdens of continued litigation,\u201d the motion concludes.<\/p>\n
The complaint and motion for final judgment and injunction are available here (1<\/a>,2<\/a>, pdf)<\/em><\/p>\n Source: \u00a0![\"TorrentFreak\"](\"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/torrentfreak.png\")
<\/a> TorrentFreak.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"