clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Jake Paul piracy case: Triller see another lawsuit thrown out by judge

New, 11 comments

Triller has failed in one of its latest attempts to sue someone they allege pirated the Jake Paul vs. Ben Askren fight.

Triller Fight Club: Jake Paul v Ben Askren
Ben Askren after he was knocked down by Jake Paul at Triller Fight Club.
Photo by Jeff Kravitz/Getty Images for Triller

On April 17 Jake Paul finished former MMA champion Ben Askren (a boxing novice) to take his pro record to 3-0. That bout happened at Triller Fight Club, the same promotion that handled his previous fight; a destruction of former NBA player Nate Robinson.

Paul is now slated to face former UFC champion Tyron Woodley on August 29. That bout will happen with Showtime Sports, a promotion that has signed Paul to a multi-fight deal.

Paul and Triller’s working relationship may have ended, but the upstart video streaming platform is still trying to maximize their profits on their previous Paul contests.

Ever since the Paul vs. Askren fight Triller has launched a number of lawsuits targeting people they accuse of pirating the fight. At first they tried to sue YouTube and other big streaming sites for enabling piracy. That suit sought damages of $100 million. However, it was thrown out. Since then Triller have been targeting individuals who they say illegally streamed and distributed the fight.

That’s not been going well for Triller, either.

Torrent Freak reports that one of Triller’s latest anti-piracy lawsuits has been dismissed by a court. That lawsuit was directed at Brandon Williams, 19, owner of a YouTube channel called ItsLilBrandon.

Triller alleged that Williams illegally streamed the Paul vs. Askren fight on his YouTube channel and appealed for users to send him payments using Cash App. Triller further alleged that Williams was operating a number of torrent and streaming websites and that the ItsLilBrandon channel was some sort of shell to avoid liability to Triller.

Triller claimed these allegations amounted to copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, violations of the Federal Communications Act, conversion, and violation of the Computer Fraud Abuse Act.

Williams was served a summons on June 7. On July 1, at a court in Dauphin County, PA, Triller applied for a default judgment against Williams citing that the accused did not respond to their complaint within 21 days of being served.

After Triller was told to file a motion for the default judgment they were seeking, United States District Judge Fernando M. Olguin told Triller that their motion should included detailed of any evidence that exists regarding their claims against Williams. Triller’s initial complaint did not include any evidence regarding claims about Williams operating torrent and streaming sites beyond his YouTube channel.

Judge Olguin warned that failure to disclose any evidence would result in the case being dismissed. The judge also told Triller that their motion had to be filed no later than July 20.

Triller failed to bring the motion by that date. Judge Olguin responded to this by dismissing the case against Williams.

“Plaintiff’s failure to file the motion for default judgment hinders the court’s ability to move this case toward disposition and indicates that plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action,” wrote Judge Olguin. “Thus, having considered the Pagtalunan factors, the court is persuaded that the instant action should be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute.”

The case was dismissed without prejudice. This means that Triller are able to make a new complaint against Williams. However, Torrent Freak believes that—given the court’s requirements for a case to move forwards—it’s unlikely that Triller will continue to pursue Williams.