Court Authorizes Unmasking Subpoena in Copyright Case–In re DMCA Subpoena to GoDaddy

The copyright owner Tamaris claims that 100+ websites, including “casinoestelar.com” and “powerbet.win,” infringe their copyrights. The copyright owner obtained a 512(h) unmasking subpoena and served it on GoDaddy. GoDaddy notified the site operator, who asked the court to quash the 512(h) subpoena. The court refuses.

The website operator complained about the lack of specifity in the 512(h) subpoena, to no avail:

Because the DMCA does not require an individualized showing of infringement or the submission of evidence supporting an infringement allegation, Respondent’s notification was sufficient and is well within the scope of § 512(h).

The court is also unmoved by a First Amendment argument. First, “neither party has explained how Movant’s use of Respondent’s copyrighted gaming software constitutes expressive conduct.” Nevertheless, “the Court considers Movant to be engaged in speech but finds that the nature of his speech is commercial. There is nothing in the record that Movant was engaged in ‘core’ First Amendment speech.”

The site operator again objected to the incomplete showing of prima facie infringement:

There is no support for Movant’s claim that Respondent cannot establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement without an individualized showing of infringement for each domain listed in the DMCA subpoena. The law requires only two things: a valid copyright and unauthorized use of the copyrighted material. Within the DMCA subpoena context, requiring an individualized showing and supporting evidence of infringement would place an enormously high burden on Respondent, who has alleged over 100 domains are infringing on its copyrights. Respondent claims that its gaming software is copyrighted and asserts that Movant used unauthorized and protected copies of this software. Movant does not dispute either of these facts.

Obviously, the copyright owner would have to make the prima facie showing for each and every domain to establish copyright infringement (unless the court lets the plaintiffs get away with a SAD Scheme). But for purposes of an unmasking subpoena, the statute arguably relaxes the prima facie standards presumably because the stakes are lower (even though unmaskings can have life-changing consequences beyond any legal proceedings).

The copyright owner’s arguments are strong enough for the court to brush aside any privacy concerns about the unmasking:

Movant’s limited expectation of privacy in his anonymous use of Respondent’s gaming software also favors disclosure. Even assuming that Movant has a privacy interest in remaining anonymous, any “privacy interest that a customer may have in the contact information associated with an IP address is minimal at best…[and] where the free speech at issue is alleged copyright infringement[,] courts have routinely held that a defendant’s First Amendment privacy interests are exceedingly small.” Moreover, there is “no similar expectation of privacy for copyright infringement.” The Movant may not “use the First Amendment to encroach upon the intellectual property rights of others[.]”

512(h) is an anachronistic policy from a different regulatory era. It prioritizes copyright owners’ prospective interests, sometimes at the expense of privacy and possibly free speech. This case may not be the best illustration of that tension, but the court’s handling of the issues shows how the deck is stacked in favor of copyright owners even when that tension exists.

Case Citation: In re DMCA Subpoena to GoDaddy.com, LLC, 2025 WL 3551922 (D. Md. Dec. 11, 2025)