"Highly confidentialattorneys' eyes only" ISP sued by record labels agrees to identify 100 users accused of piracy Legal discovery targets names of Altice users hit with copyright notices. Jon Brodkin Feb 20, 2025 3:23 pm | 8 Credit: Getty Images | OcusFocus Credit: Getty Images | OcusFocus Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreCable company Altice agreed to give Warner and other record labels the names and contact information of 100 broadband subscribers who were accused of pirating songs.The subscribers "were the subject of RIAA or third party copyright notices," said a court order that approved the agreement between Altice and the plaintiff record companies. Altice is notifying each subscriber "of Altice's intent to disclose their name and contact information to Plaintiffs pursuant to this Order," and telling the notified subscribers that they have 30 days to seek relief from the court.If subscribers do not object within a month, Altice must disclose the subscribers' names, phone numbers, addresses, and email addresses. The judge's order was issued on February 12 and reported yesterday by TorrentFreak.The names and contact information will be classified as "highly confidentialattorneys' eyes only." A separate order issued in April 2024 said that documents produced in discovery "shall be used by the Parties only in the litigation of this Action and shall not be used for any other purpose."Altice, which operates the Optimum brand, was sued in December 2023 in US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The music publishers' complaint alleges that Altice "knowingly contributed to, and reaped substantial profits from, massive copyright infringement committed by thousands of its subscribers."The lawsuit said plaintiffs sent over 70,000 infringement notices to Altice from February 2020 through November 2023. At least a few subscribers were allegedly hit with hundreds of notices. The lawsuit gave three examples of IP addresses that were cited in 502, 781, and 926 infringement notices, respectively.Altice failed to terminate repeat infringers whose IP addresses were flagged in these copyright notices, the lawsuit said. "Those notices advised Altice of its subscribers' blatant and systematic use of Altice's Internet service to illegally download, copy, and distribute Plaintiffs' copyrighted music through BitTorrent and other online file-sharing services. Rather than working with Plaintiffs to curb this massive infringement, Altice did nothing, choosing to prioritize its own profits over its legal obligations," the plaintiffs alleged.ISPs face numerous lawsuitsThis is one of numerous copyright lawsuits filed against broadband providers, and it's not the first time an ISP handed names of subscribers to the plaintiffs. We have previously written articles about film studios trying to force Reddit to identify users who admitted torrenting in discussion forums. Reddit was able to avoid providing information in one case in part because the film studios already obtained identifying details for 118 subscribers directly from Grande, the ISP they had sued.Copyright owners can issue subpoenas to subscribers whose names are provided by ISPs, though they have sought easier ways to get the information they want. In the 2023 case involving film studios and Reddit, a magistrate judge wrote that the studios "resist serving those [Grande] subscribers with subpoenas as burdensome and inconsistent with their August expert-disclosure deadline."As for the Warner v. Altice case, we reached out to both companies today to ask how the names and contact information of subscribers will be used. We'll update this article if we get any information.Presumably, the record companies will seek information from the subscribers to support their case that Altice allowed them to illegally download copyrighted material without consequences. Financial awards in such cases can be large: A federal jury in Virginia ruled in December 2019 that ISP Cox had to pay $1 billion in damages to the major record labels.A 2024 ruling vacated the $1 billion damages award and ordered a new damages trial. The Supreme Court is now considering whether to take up the case.Copyright holders want ISPs to police infringementIn addition to getting financial payouts, copyright holders want to set a legal precedent that would force ISPs to terminate users accused of repeat infringement. Several ISPs urged the Supreme Court to intervene in the Cox case, arguing that they shouldn't be forced to aggressively police copyright infringement on broadband networks.Mass terminations would harm people who happen to be using the same connection as the person who did the infringing, ISPs say. They also contest the reliability of copyright infringement notices, saying the "bot-generated" notices are vague and that ISPs can't verify their accuracy.With discovery proceeding in the Altice case, plaintiffs recently agreed to Altice's request for per-work revenue figures and other data. Altice previously tried to get the lawsuit thrown out, but the motion to dismiss was denied in September 2024.Altice was also sued by UMG (Universal Music Group) in December 2022, but the case was dismissed with prejudice at the request of the parties in August 2024.Jon BrodkinSenior IT ReporterJon BrodkinSenior IT Reporter Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry. 8 Comments