The complaint accused the tech company of using adult films to assist its AI model training. Similar claims have been made by other rightsholders, including many\u00a0book authors<\/a>.<\/p>\n This latest case specifically focuses on Meta\u2019s BitTorrent activity. That\u2019s no surprise, as plaintiff Strike 3 is the\u00a0most active<\/a>\u00a0copyright litigant in the United States, known for targeting thousands of\u00a0alleged BitTorrent pirates<\/a>.<\/p>\n In October 2025, Meta responded to the allegations by filing a\u00a0motion to dismiss<\/a>\u00a0at a California federal court. Taking a page from the BitTorrent piracy defense playbook, Meta argues that the IP address evidence presented by the plaintiffs is meaningless without context.<\/p>\n The porn producers had linked numerous Meta IP addresses to unauthorized sharing activity. According to Meta, however, there is no evidence that the alleged activity on its corporate network was centrally orchestrated by the company. In fact, it countered that many alleged downloads predate Meta\u2019s AI training activity.<\/p>\n In addition to denying the allegations, the tech company offered an alternative explanation. Meta suggested that employees or visitors may have downloaded the pirated videos for\u00a0personal use<\/a>.<\/p>\n In an order released last week, U.S. District Judge Eumi K. Lee refused to throw the case out. In a 16-page order, she denied Meta\u2019s motion and let all three of Strike 3\u2019s direct, vicarious, and contributory copyright infringement claims proceed.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n One of Meta\u2019s lead arguments was that, in order to prove direct infringement, Strike 3 had to show its films were actually used to train a model. However, Judge Lee explained that this is not needed, as Meta\u2019s alleged copying of the films via BitTorrent is copyright infringement.<\/p>\n \u201cBecause Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded that their exclusive rights under the Copyright Act were violated when their films were torrented, they have satisfied the second element, regardless of whether their films were used to train specific AI models,\u201d the order reads.<\/p>\n Another key question was whether the torrenting activity can be attributed to Meta, or if the downloads came from employees, who downloaded content for personal use.<\/p>\n Strike 3 argued that the actions were coordinated by Meta, showing similar download patterns across 47 corporate IP addresses and seven hidden ranges. This includes files with the same keywords downloaded on the same day.<\/p>\n Judge Lee found the coincidence theory implausible and pointed at a spreadsheet of addresses grabbing files with \u201cteen\u201d in the title, from \u201cTeen Titans\u201d and \u201cTeenage Mutant Ninja Turtles\u201d through to explicit adult releases.<\/p>\n \u201cThe word \u201cteen\u201d appears in every file name. Similar patterns are shown repeatedly across the identified IP addresses. It strains credulity to suggest that these correlations are mere coincidence and the product of individual human selections,\u201d Judge Lee noted.<\/p>\n \u201cInstead, the many commonalities across files permit a reasonable inference that the downloads were operated by an algorithm using key terms, which accounts for why pornography was downloaded alongside children\u2019s cartoons and sitcoms.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Other download patterns also appeared to be illogical. For example, multiple IP-addresses from various ranges torrented eight episodes of Ted Lasso out of order, on a single day. Meta suggested that this could be coincidental download activity by several people, but Judge Lee believes this to be unlikely.<\/p>\n \u201cBut the odds that multiple people using the Corporate IP Addresses and the IP Ranges coincidentally torrented the same show, rather than simply streaming it, on the exact same day strains belief\u2026\u201d, Judge Lee writes.<\/p>\n The contributory copyright infringement claim also survives. While the motion to dismiss was pending, the Supreme Court handed down\u00a0Cox Communications v. Sony<\/a>, raising the bar for contributory infringement. However, that wasn\u2019t enough to help Meta at this stage.<\/p>\n Judge Lee recognized that, if Meta merely offered its infrastructure to copyright infringers, this would not be sufficient to trigger liability.<\/p>\n \u201cStanding alone, Plaintiffs\u2019 allegation that Defendant \u2018provid[ed] access to its servers, data centers, IP addresses, computers, networks, [and] accounts\u2019 would be insufficient under Cox Communications,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n However, Strike 3\u2019s allegation went further, alleging that Meta encouraged copyright infringement by offering specific tools and services for it.<\/p>\n \u201cPlaintiffs plausibly allege that Defendant took active steps to encourage torrenting by implementing an algorithm and establishing VPCs \u2013 tools tailored to infringe copyrighted works using BitTorrent.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The vicarious copyright infringement also survived the motion to dismiss. According to Judge Lee, Meta has a direct financial interest in amassing high-quality training data for its commercial AI products.<\/p>\n While Meta\u2019s motion to dismiss failed on all claims, the company\u2019s defenses could still succeed further down the line, when the evidence is reviewed in detail.<\/p>\n For example, Meta argued that testimony in a related case shows that its torrenting servers went live in 2024, not 2018, so they cannot be the same infrastructure behind ranges active for years.<\/p>\n Additionally, Meta said much of the infringing activity in this case took place years before the company started training its video models. Those and other points will be contested in detail as the case proceeds.<\/p>\n For now, the case heads into discovery. Meta must answer the complaint, the parties are due to attempt mediation by early August, and a jury trial is set for February 2028.<\/p>\n \u2014<\/em><\/p>\n A copy of Judge Eumi K. Lee\u2019s order denying Meta\u2019s motion to dismiss is available\u00a0here (pdf)<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n Source: \u00a0Meta Wants Case Dismissed<\/h2>\n
Court: Torrenting is the Infringement<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/torrentfreak.com\/images\/conclude.png.webp)
<\/picture><\/center> <\/p>\nCoordinated, Not Coincidental<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/torrentfreak.com\/images\/teeny.png.webp)
<\/picture><\/center> <\/p>\nCox Doesn\u2019t Save Meta<\/h2>\n
![\"cox](\"https:\/\/torrentfreak.com\/images\/stabdingalone.png.webp)
<\/picture><\/center> <\/p>\nThe Case Continues<\/h2>\n
![\"TorrentFreak\"](\"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/torrentfreak.png\")
<\/a> TorrentFreak.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"