Meta argued that 97 alleged BitTorrent downloads linked to a Meta contractor’s father’s home internet address were personal use, not activity plausibly tied to the company. On June 11, 2026, a federal judge denied Meta’s motion to dismiss the copyright case—but did not decide whether Meta infringed copyright or used the films to train AI.
What the headline is about
Strike 3 Holdings and Counterlife Media sued Meta in July 2025, alleging that the company used BitTorrent to download thousands of their films for training generative AI models. Those claims appear in the companies’ complaint; they are allegations, not established findings. The complaint, filed July 23, 2025, sets out the plaintiffs’ account.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The “employee’s dad” detail came later, in Meta’s defense filing. Meta said plaintiffs attributed 97 additional downloads to the home IP address of a Meta contractor’s father. Meta argued those downloads indicated personal use and were not plausibly connected to company-directed activity. That is Meta’s characterization in its October 27, 2025 motion to dismiss, not a court finding about who downloaded the films or why.
What each side said—and what the judge decided
| Stage | What it says | What it establishes |
|---|---|---|
| Strike 3 and Counterlife’s complaint, July 23, 2025 | The companies alleged Meta used BitTorrent to download their films and used them for AI training. | The allegations were filed; the complaint itself does not prove them. |
| Meta’s motion to dismiss, October 27, 2025 | Meta disputed the alleged link between the downloads and company activity, including characterizing the 97 father-address-linked downloads as personal use. | Meta made those arguments; the motion does not establish the downloader’s identity or purpose. |
| Court order, June 11, 2026 | The Northern District of California denied Meta’s motion to dismiss. | The action could proceed beyond that motion. The ruling did not determine ultimate liability or whether the films were used to train AI. |
In describing the case, Judge Eumi K. Lee wrote that it “arises out of allegations” that Meta used BitTorrent to download the plaintiffs’ films for AI training. That wording identifies the claims before the court; it is not an endorsement of their truth. The June 11, 2026 order denied dismissal, not a final judgment after trial.
#1 Best Overall
Did the judge rule Meta guilty?
No. Denying a motion to dismiss means the case was not thrown out at that stage. It is not a finding that Meta infringed copyright, that the alleged downloads occurred as described, or that the films were used to train an AI model. The identity and purpose of the father-address-linked downloads remain contested in the materials cited here.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is known about the case’s later status?
The cited court order establishes that the motion to dismiss was denied on June 11, 2026. It does not establish the case’s final disposition after that date, so it would be inaccurate to call the matter settled, finally decided, or still active on the basis of that order alone.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
