A DISH copyright lawsuit against UK-based CDN company DataCamp has ended with a settlement. The original complaint alleged that DataCamp failed to terminate ‘repeat infringer’ customers, identified by DISH as the operators of several IPTV services. The $3m settlement subjects DataCamp to an enhanced notice-and-takedown regime with financial penalties for noncompliance. Outside the agreement, the parties still disagree on almost everything.


A DISH Network copyright infringement lawsuit filed in February 2022, demanded $32.5m in damages from UK-based CDN company DataCamp.

The original complaint alleged that DataCamp failed to take appropriate action against 11 pirate IPTV services. DISH claimed these clients were repeat infringers after sending over 400 DMCA notices to DataCamp.

In many respects the lawsuit was not dissimilar to others that have targeted ISPs and various intermediaries in recent years. Allegations that DataCamp failed to act appropriately under a reasonable ‘repeat infringer’ policy, for example, is a hallmark of these potentially ruinous lawsuits.

The Specter of Losing Safe Harbor Protection

If a court determines that an intermediary cannot rely on safe harbor protections, the financial consequences of liability can prove catastrophic. As a result, pressure on DataCamp to settle would have been (or at least should have been) enormous. Instead, DataCamp came out swinging.

After settlement negotiations failed and pressure increased, DataCamp accused the plaintiffs of targeting smaller companies with copyright infringement claims, then aiming for cash settlements as an alternative to expensive lawsuits with unpredictable outcomes.

Given that opposing parties go to court to solve disputes, with settlement one of the more obvious options, in itself the DataCamp claim wasn’t especially unusual. However, the company went on to allege that it had been offered a public consent judgment, ostensibly worth tens of millions of dollars in the plaintiff’s favor, on the understanding that a private agreement meant that nothing would ever be paid.

The value, the company said, was in letting other potential lawsuit targets believe that, since DataCamp had paid, when DISH came knocking, they would have to pay too.

Leave a comment

Open chat
Can we help you?