Chicago Residents Are Now Receiving Notices Regarding LHF Productions Lawsuits – Call Today And Talk To Attorney Erin Russell About Settlement
LHF Productions, LLC, the owns the rights to the film “London Has Fallen”. They filed nine new copyright infringement lawsuits against more than 200 Chicago-area residents on November 14, 2016. In these cases, LHF Productions is alleging that BitTorrent users downloaded and distributed pieces of the film “London Has Fallen” in violation of the Copyright Act. They have asked the Court for permission to send a subpoena to Comcast to ask for the names and addresses of the Comcast subscribers assigned to the IP addresses they allege to have caught downloading London Has Fallen. The Court has allowed them to issue the subpoenas, and Comcast will then notify subscribers that their information is being sought by the attorneys for LHF. When you get the Comcast letter, that’s the best time to take action! You can settle anonymously and keep your name from being released by Comcast, or start the process of proving your innocence if you know you are not the downloader.
UPDATED: It is now January of 2017, and Comcast letters are arriving in Chicago notifying people that LHF has subpoenaed their information. If you have received a letter from Comcast about a subpoena and referencing one of these cases, that means you are at the first step in this litigation. This is the time to call for your free consultation with Erin to get the information you need to decide how to handle your case. You can call Attorney Erin Russell for a free consultation seven days per week at 312-994-2424 to talk about your options. She has 12 years of litigation experience, and is one of the most experienced BitTorrent defense attorneys in the country. She always offers a free, no obligation consultation. Erin charges a reasonable flat fee for all BitTorrent defense cases, and offers discounts to students, senior citizens and members of the military. Call and get a free consultation right away. Erin will give you all of the information you need to make a decision about whether to settle or to litigate, and how best to use your resources to resolve your case. Erin wrote an explanatory piece on the anatomy of a BitTorrent copyright infringement case on this site here. It may be helpful to read if you are confused as to why you received a letter.
Most people are worried and afraid when they receive one of these letters. There are a few things you should know before you read any further:
1. This is a manageable problem.
2. You have good options, and you can choose what happens next.
3. Getting sued for copyright infringement of a single film is not going to ruin you financially.
4. If you act sooner rather than later when you receive a letter from your internet provider, you can avoid having your name disclosed to the plaintiff and can avoid having your name made public in the case. You can also resolve the case more cheaply.
5. Attorney Erin Russell has handled more than a thousand BitTorrent defense cases involving a single film being downloaded. Some of those cases were settled, and some were dismissed outright. Your case can be worked out without it affecting your credit or involving your name being placed in the public record.
6. Everything will be ok as long as you don’t ignore the letter. Whatever you do, don’t ignore the letter. LHF is not going to just “give up and go away”, and there is no “lottery” used to choose which defendants they pursue. They pursue every defendant to the end of each case.
The following cases were filed by LHF Productions, Inc. in the Northern District of Illinois on November 14, 2016:
LHF Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-31 — 1:16-cv-10557
LHF Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-25 — 1:16-cv-10559
LHF Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-26 — 1:16-cv-10561
LHF Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-28 — 1:16-cv-10564
LHF Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-19 — 1:16-cv-10565
LHF Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-21 — 1:16-cv-10567
LHF Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-19 — 1:16-cv-10568
LHF Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-26 — 1:16-cv-10571
LHF Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-32 — 1:16-cv-10575