Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Bill Alessi, Founder & CEO, Alpha Modus
  • Burford Fires Opening Salvo Against Senate Tax Hike
Commercial Legal Innovation

Rightscorp Announces Strategic Expansion, Legal Momentum, and Introduction of Rightscan: An AI-Powered Copyright Data Aggregation Platform

By Harry Moran |

Rightscorp, Inc., a leader in digital copyright enforcement and data intelligence, is pleased to provide a comprehensive corporate update following its successful shareholder meeting. This update outlines the company’s ongoing legal achievements, strategic growth initiatives, and the preview of its transformative Rightscan Data Aggregator platform.

Commitment to Shareholders

Rightscorp extends its sincere appreciation to all shareholders who participated in the recent shareholder meeting and exercised their voting rights on proxy materials. We are pleased to announce that all resolutions were approved, demonstrating strong investor confidence in the company’s strategic direction. This support underscores a shared commitment to expanding Rightscorp’s technological and legal capabilities to maximize long-term valuation.

Establishing Legal Precedent: Rightscorp’s Pivotal Role in Copyright Enforcement

Rightscorp has consistently played a defining role in shaping legal precedent in copyright enforcement, delivering tangible results for rights holders. Over the years, the company has been instrumental in major litigation efforts that have established significant legal standards in the fight against digital piracy. Key legal milestones include:

  • BMG Rights Management v. Cox Communications (2015) – A landmark case reaffirming ISPs’ obligations under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) resulted in a $25 million jury award and $8.3 million in attorney’s fees for copyright holders, ultimately settling for an undisclosed amount. This set a pivotal precedent regarding the responsibilities of ISPs in mitigating piracy on their networks.
  • UMG Recordings, Inc. et al. v. Grande Communications Networks, LLC (2022) – A federal jury found Grande Communications liable for willful contributory copyright infringement, initially awarding $46.7 million in damages. The ruling reaffirmed that ISPs cannot claim safe harbor protection while failing to address widespread copyright violations on their networks.
  • BMG Rights Management v. Altice USA, Inc. (2022-2024) – A rapid and decisive legal action against Altice USA, one of the largest ISPs in the U.S. The case, built on overwhelming evidence provided by Rightscorp, resulted in a confidential settlement in record time, reinforcing the company’s effectiveness in securing enforcement outcomes.

These cases underscore Rightscorp’s ability to leverage sophisticated copyright data intelligence to support rights holders in enforcing their intellectual property rights through decisive legal action.

Legal Victory in American Films v. Rightscorp, Inc.

Rightscorp is pleased to report a significant legal victory in the case of American Films, LLC v. Rightscorp, Inc. The case, which stemmed from meritless claims against Rightscorp, was ultimately dismissed with prejudice, affirming the company’s legal standing. Furthermore, the court ruled in favor of Rightscorp’s entitlement to recover attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. This outcome reflects the company’s steadfast commitment to defending itself against unfounded legal challenges and reinforces the legitimacy of its operations.

Expanding Legal Initiatives Through Strategic Litigation Partnerships

To further strengthen its enforcement capabilities, Rightscorp is actively engaging with industry-leading litigation funders to scale its legal initiatives. These strategic partnerships will enable the company to pursue larger and more impactful copyright enforcement actions with increased efficiency. Additionally, Rightscorp’s long-standing legal counsel-instrumental in previous landmark copyright litigation-remains actively involved and highly optimistic about the evolving legal landscape. With expanded funding and legal expertise, Rightscorp is positioned to drive enforcement actions on a scale never seen before, benefiting copyright owners across the industry.

Rightscan Data Aggregator: A Paradigm Shift in Copyright Intelligence (Coming Q2-Q3 2025)

Rightscorp is proud to introduce Rightscan, a cutting-edge AI-powered platform designed to transform the landscape of copyright enforcement and data monetization. Unlike conventional enforcement tools that rely on self-reported infringement data, Rightscan autonomously aggregates and analyzes vast datasets, offering unparalleled insight into copyright compliance, piracy trends, and enforcement opportunities.

To learn more about Rightscan and its capabilities, visit www.rightscan.co

Key Capabilities of Rightscan:

  • DMCA Compliance Monitoring – AI-driven tracking of ISP compliance, ensuring persistent enforcement regardless of corporate restructuring or name changes.
  • Comprehensive Copyright Registration Intelligence – Analyzes official copyright filings to identify works and highlight acquisition opportunities for investors.
  • Piracy Leakage Analysis – Provides API-driven insights to royalty collection firms and content owners, quantifying lost revenue linked to digital piracy.
  • Advanced Data Monetization – Leverages proprietary data analytics to provide actionable intelligence for private equity firms, digital rights managers, and ad-tech platforms.
  • IP-Based Audience Insights – Uses torrent-related data to offer alternative audience targeting solutions, bridging the gap between piracy monitoring and digital marketing optimization.

Continued Market Demand for Rightscorp’s Legal Copyright Enforcement Platform

While Rightscan marks a significant leap in copyright intelligence, Rightscorp’s legal enforcement platform remains integral to the company’s core operations. The demand for traditional copyright enforcement remains strong among major record labels, private equity firms, and other entities that own extensive copyright portfolios.

The growing availability of litigation funding, combined with renewed interest from existing and prospective clients, is driving expansion discussions. The company is actively working with litigation funders, legal experts, and copyright owners to scale enforcement initiatives faster and more effectively than ever before.

Looking Forward: A Future Defined by Innovation and Enforcement

As Rightscorp continues to lead in copyright enforcement and data intelligence, our focus remains on technological advancement, strategic industry partnerships, and further legal precedents. By harnessing AI-driven copyright analytics, securing litigation funding, and reinforcing its market leadership, Rightscorp is setting the stage for sustained growth and enhanced value for its shareholders.

About

Rightscorp (OTC PINK:RIHT) monetizes copyrighted Intellectual Property (IP). The Company’s patent pending digital loss prevention technology focuses on the infringement of digital content such as music, movies, software, and games and ensures that owners and creators are rightfully paid for their IP. Rightscorp implements existing laws to solve copyright infringements by collecting payments from illegal file sharing activities via notifications sent through Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The Company’s technology identifies copyright infringers, who are offered a reasonable settlement option when compared to the legal liability defined in the Digital Millennium Copyrights Act (DMCA). Based on the fact that 24% of all internet traffic is used to distribute copyrighted content without permission, Rightscorp is pursuing an estimated $2.3 billion opportunity and has monetized major media titles through relationships with industry leaders.

Safe Harbor Statement

This shareholder update contains information that constitutes forward-looking statements made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Any such forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from any future results described within the forward-looking statements. Risk factors that could contribute to such differences include those matters more fully disclosed in the Company’s reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The forward-looking information provided herein represents the Company’s estimates as of the date of the shareholder update, and subsequent events and developments may cause the Company’s estimates to change. The Company specifically disclaims any obligation to update the forward-looking information in the future. Therefore, this forward-looking information should not be relied upon as representing the Company’s estimates of its future financial performance as of any date subsequent to the date of this shareholder update.

CONTACT:

Markus Rainak
855-520-7448
Support@rightscorp.com

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.