ISP-Liability & Media Law
Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.30.09
Other sections of this issue:
Privacy & Data Protection | ISP-Liability & Media Law | Contracts & E-Commerce |
Electronic Communications & IT
The Pirate Bay has recently been subject to negative court decisions throughout Europe. The Pirate Bay is a website that facilitates file-sharing by offering bittorrent files and is among the 100 most visited websites in the world. Although The Pirate Bay was already considered illegal in Sweden since 17 April 2009, the Swedish software company Global Gaming Factory X AB outlined in June 2009 its plans to acquire The Pirate Bay website and the technology company Peerialism that has developed next generation file-sharing technology.
Introduction
On 17 April 2009 the founders of The Pirate Bay website were found guilty in Sweden of breaking copyright law and were sentenced to a year in jail and ordered to pay about € 2.7m in fines and damages to a coalition of media firms. Also in other jurisdictions, the founders of the Pirate Bay faced negative court decisions. This did not prevent the Swedish software company Global Gaming Factory X AB to outline its plans to acquire the website. The acquisition was planned for August 2009, but has been delayed and is currently facing further setbacks.
Negative court decisions for The Pirate Bay
The first negative court decision for The Pirate Bay was on 17 April 2009 when the Stockholm district court in Sweden found that the founders of The Pirate Bay were all guilty of accessory to crime against copyright law, strengthened by the commercial and organized nature of the activity. However, the website has remained open since. This has prompted a series of further lawsuits and calls to have the site closed or blocked in various jurisdictions. For instance, in the Netherlands, the court of Amsterdam decided on 30 May 2009 that the holders/administrators of The Pirate Bay had to make the website inaccessible for internet users in the Netherlands.
Press release of Global Gaming Factory X AG
One month after the decision of the Dutch court, the Swedish listed company Global Gaming Factory X AG announced that it intended to take over The Pirate Bay website. The plan was to launch new business models that would allow compensation to the content providers and copyright owners. This plan would include models for cooperation and a clear allocation of responsibilities between the Internet Service Providers, other service providers, search engines and rights' holders.
Setbacks for Global Gaming Factory X AG
Nevertheless, this plan is far from being implemented.
In the Netherlands, the court of Amsterdam decided on 6 July 2009 that Global Gaming Factory X AG must make The Pirate Bay website inaccessible for internet users in the Netherlands as soon as it would acquire The Pirate Bay.
In August 2009 trading in shares of Global Gaming Factory X AG was suspended after an investigation was launched into financial irregularities, leading up to a bankruptcy petition in September 2009.
These setbacks make it less likely that the plan of creating new compensation models would be implemented soon.
References: Rb. Amsterdam, 30 July 2009, KG ZA 09-1092 WT/RV; Judgment, 17 April 2009, Stockholm district court, B 13301-06
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
