Trending Now
  • Consumer Legal Funding Is a Lifeline for Americans Living Paycheck to Paycheck
Commercial Legal Innovation

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

By Harry Moran |
March 5, 2025

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

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

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

Harry Moran

Harry Moran

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Secures Landmark Win Against BHP in Brazil Dam Case

By John Freund |

In a major breakthrough for cross-border group litigation, Pogust Goodhead has secured a resounding victory in its long-running claim against mining giant BHP over the 2015 collapse of the Fundão tailings dam in Mariana, Brazil. The UK High Court has ruled BHP liable for the disaster, which killed 19 people and unleashed a wave of toxic sludge through the Rio Doce basin, displacing entire communities and leaving lasting environmental damage.

According to Non-Billable, the ruling confirms BHP’s liability under both Brazilian environmental law and the Brazilian Civil Code. In rejecting the company’s jurisdictional and limitation defenses, the court made clear that English law recognizes the right of over 600,000 Brazilian claimants to pursue redress in UK courts. The judgment underscores BHP’s operational and strategic control over the Samarco joint venture and found that the company was aware of critical dam defects more than a year before the collapse. The attempt to distance itself through the argument of being an indirect polluter was also dismissed.

This outcome is a critical milestone in one of the largest group actions ever brought in the UK. A trial on damages is now scheduled for October 2026, with case management proceedings set to resume in December.

The win comes amid internal turbulence at Pogust Goodhead, including recent leadership changes and reported tensions with its litigation finance backers, but the firm remains on course to press forward with what could be a multibillion-dollar compensation phase.

Commercial

Incentive Payments Not Essential for Named Plaintiffs, Study Finds

By John Freund |

A new empirical study by Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School challenges a widely held assumption in class action litigation: that incentive payments are necessary to recruit named plaintiffs. The research, published in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, analyzed federal class-action filings from January 2017 through May 2024, using data drawn from the legal-tech platform Lex Machina. It leveraged a natural experiment created by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s 2020 ruling that barred incentive payments in the 11th Circuit (Florida, Georgia, Alabama) while other circuits continued permitting them.

An article in Reuters states that according to the analysis, the volume of class-actions filed in the 11th Circuit did not meaningfully decline relative to other circuits after the ban on incentive payments. In other words, the absence of such payments did not appear to impair the ability of plaintiffs’ counsel to find willing named plaintiffs.

Fitzpatrick and his co-author, graduate student Colton Cronin, observed that although courts routinely approve modest incentive awards (averaging about $7,500 in non-securities class actions) to compensate the named plaintiff’s extra effort post-settlement, the data suggest that payments may not be a driving factor in recruitment.

Fitzpatrick emphasizes that this is not to say incentive payments have no role. He notes that there remains a moral argument for compensating named plaintiffs who shoulder additional burdens. These include depositions, discovery responses, trial participation, and public exposure. Yet the study’s finding is notable. Motivation for class-representation may be rooted more in altruism, reputation or justice-seeking than in straightforward financial gain.

For the legal-funding industry and class-action litigators, the findings are significant. They suggest that reliance on incentive payments to secure named plaintiffs may be less critical than previously assumed, potentially lowering a transactional cost input in structuring class settlements. On the other hand, third-party funders and litigation financiers should consider how the supply of willing named plaintiffs might remain stable even in jurisdictions restricting such payments.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Merricks Calls for Ban on Secret Arbitrations in Funded Claims

By John Freund |

Walter Merricks, the class representative behind the landmark Mastercard case, has publicly criticized the use of confidential arbitration clauses in litigation funding agreements tied to collective proceedings.

According to Legal Futures, Merricks spoke at an event where he argued that such clauses can leave class representatives exposed and unsupported, particularly when disputes arise with funders. He emphasized that disagreements between funders and class representatives should be heard in open proceedings before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), not behind closed doors.

His comments come in the wake of the £200 million settlement in the Mastercard claim—significantly lower than the original £14 billion figure cited in early filings. During the settlement process, Merricks became the target of an arbitration initiated by his funder, Innsworth Capital. The arbitration named him personally, prompting Mastercard to offer an indemnity of up to £10 million to shield him from personal financial risk.

Merricks warned that the confidentiality of arbitration allows funders to exert undue pressure on class representatives, who often lack institutional backing or leverage. He called on the CAT to scrutinize and reject funding agreements that designate arbitration as the sole forum for dispute resolution. In his view, transparency and public accountability are vital in collective actions, especially when funders and claimants diverge on strategy or settlement terms.

His remarks highlight a growing debate in the legal funding industry over the proper governance of funder-representative relationships. If regulators move to curtail arbitration clauses, it could force funders to navigate public scrutiny and recalibrate their contractual protections in UK group litigation.