Strike 3 Holdings Connecticut Lawsuit Trends: May–November 2026
Are Strike 3 Holdings Connecticut lawsuits increasing?
Yes. Based on the dockets reviewed as of November 9, 2026, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed 23 federal lawsuits in Connecticut between May 3 and November 9, 2026, up 27.8% from 18 in the six months before (November 3, 2025 to May 2, 2026).
- All 23 cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the state’s only federal district court.
- Strike 3 Holdings filed one batch a month, from 8 cases on May 14 to a single case on October 28 (3:26-cv-01898). No new Connecticut cases were filed from November 1 to November 9.
- Connecticut judges are allowing early ISP subpoenas, but with added privacy conditions, including long waiting periods before your provider releases your information. The newest order, signed November 4, 2026, allows a subpoena to Comcast.
Last updated November 9, 2026.
If your internet provider sent you a letter about a Strike 3 Holdings case in Connecticut, this report shows how often these cases are being filed, how the District of Connecticut is handling them, which providers appear, and what usually comes next. Call or tap (312) 201-8310 for a free, confidential consultation with Torrent Defenders®, a practice of Antonelli Law®, or request a consultation online.
How many Strike 3 Holdings Connecticut lawsuits were filed from May to November 2026?
Strike 3 Holdings filed 23 Connecticut federal lawsuits from May 3 to November 9, 2026, based on the dockets reviewed as of November 9, 2026. That compares with 18 cases in the prior six months (November 3, 2025 to May 2, 2026), an increase of 27.8%.
| Month | Filing date | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| May 3–31, 2026 | May 14 | 8 |
| June 2026 | June 16 | 3 |
| July 2026 | July 22 | 5 |
| August 2026 | August 20 | 1 |
| September 2026 | September 22 | 5 |
| October 2026 | October 28 | 1 |
| November 1–9, 2026 | — | 0 |
Source: federal court dockets reviewed as of November 9, 2026. Counts are cases with Strike 3 Holdings, LLC as plaintiff, by filing date. Every case title was checked, and all 41 cases in both periods read “Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe.”
How does that compare with the prior six months?
| Month | Filing date | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| November 2025 | November 21 | 4 |
| December 2025 | December 23 | 3 |
| January 2026 | January 19 | 2 |
| February 2026 | February 12 | 2 |
| March 2026 | March 19 | 5 |
| April 2026 | April 15 | 2 |
| Total | 18 |
Source: federal court dockets reviewed as of November 9, 2026.
The May 14 batch of 8 cases was the largest single filing day in either period. Filings then slowed to 1 case in August and 1 in October, and none were filed in the first nine days of November.
Latest Strike 3 Holdings Connecticut cases: September 22 – November 9, 2026
These are the six most recent Strike 3 Holdings Connecticut cases: five filed September 22, 2026 and one, 3:26-cv-01898, filed October 28, 2026. Their Exhibit As list IP addresses in Greenwich, Amston, Bristol, Berlin, Unionville and Glastonbury, on five different providers: Frontier Communications (2), Optimum Fiber, Verizon 5G Home, Comcast Cable and Cox Communications.
| Filed | Docket | IP address | City | ISP | Works listed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09/22/2026 | 3:26-cv-01609 · Exhibit A | 69.113.210.145 | Greenwich, CT | Optimum Fiber | 46 |
| 09/22/2026 | 3:26-cv-01610 · Exhibit A | 47.165.109.85 | Amston, CT | Frontier Communications | 34 |
| 09/22/2026 | 3:26-cv-01611 · Exhibit A | ISP subpoena order | 47.164.99.153 | Bristol, CT | Frontier Communications | 25 |
| 09/22/2026 | 3:26-cv-01612 · Exhibit A | ISP subpoena order | 75.228.198.181 | Berlin, CT | Verizon 5G Home | 24 |
| 09/22/2026 | 3:26-cv-01613 · Exhibit A | ISP subpoena order | 24.62.3.104 | Unionville, CT | Comcast Cable | 32 |
| 10/28/2026 | 3:26-cv-01898 · Exhibit A | Complaint | 72.209.37.21 | Glastonbury, CT | Cox Communications | 35 |
City, provider and works are shown exactly as listed in each Exhibit A. The city in an Exhibit A is the plaintiff’s location estimate for the IP address, not proof of who used it.
What the Exhibit As show
- 196 works in six cases, from 24 (3:26-cv-01612) to 46 (3:26-cv-01609). That is an average of about 33 works per case.
- Brands: Blacked 69, Blacked Raw 34, Vixen 30, MILFY 25, Tushy 24, Tushy Raw 9, Wifey 4 and Slayed 1. Blacked is the largest brand in three of the six cases and ties for the lead in a fourth.
- Date ranges vary widely. Two cases cover only a few weeks of activity (3:26-cv-01611: August 4–16, 2026; 3:26-cv-01612: August 15 – September 7, 2026). Others reach back much further: 3:26-cv-01609 runs from February 14, 2025 to July 30, 2026, 3:26-cv-01613 from December 24, 2025 to September 7, 2026, and 3:26-cv-01898 from December 30, 2023 to September 28, 2026. 3:26-cv-01610 covers March 16 to September 12, 2026.
- Shared files: the same file hash appears in both 3:26-cv-01609 and 3:26-cv-01898, and another appears in both 3:26-cv-01610 and 3:26-cv-01612. Popular releases are often shared by many people, so a shared hash does not link the subscribers to each other.
Judges assigned and early ISP subpoena orders
- 3:26-cv-01898 (filed October 28, 2026): Judge Omar A. Williams, presiding. Any referral other than settlement goes to Magistrate Judge S. Dave Vatti. Open. No early ISP subpoena motion appears on the docket as of November 9, 2026.
- 3:26-cv-01613 (filed September 22, 2026): Judge Sarah F. Russell, presiding; referred to Magistrate Judge S. Dave Vatti on October 5, 2026. Open. Early ISP subpoena to Comcast granted November 4, 2026 by Magistrate Judge Vatti. Comcast has 60 days after the subpoena to notify the subscriber, and the subscriber then has 60 days to file a motion to quash or a request to proceed anonymously.
- 3:26-cv-01612 (filed September 22, 2026): Judge Omar A. Williams, presiding. Open. Early ISP subpoena to Verizon 5G Home granted October 5, 2026.
- 3:26-cv-01611 (filed September 22, 2026): Judge Sarala V. Nagala, presiding. Open. Early ISP subpoena to Frontier Communications granted October 13, 2026. Strike 3 Holdings must file a status report by December 14, 2026 if the subscriber has not been identified.
- 3:26-cv-01610 (filed September 22, 2026): Judge Stefan R. Underhill, presiding. Any referral other than settlement goes to Magistrate Judge S. Dave Vatti. Open. Strike 3 Holdings moved for an early ISP subpoena on October 1, 2026, and the motion is still pending as of November 9, 2026.
- 3:26-cv-01609 (filed September 22, 2026): Judge Stefan R. Underhill, presiding. Any referral other than settlement goes to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Spector. Open. Judge Underhill granted the early ISP subpoena motion on October 2, 2026, one day after it was filed. The provider in this case is Optimum Fiber.
Court documents for the latest Connecticut cases
| Docket | City | ISP | Exhibit A | Complaint | Orders/other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3:26-cv-01898 | Glastonbury | Cox Communications | Exhibit A (PDF) | Complaint (PDF) | Not available |
| 3:26-cv-01613 | Unionville | Comcast Cable | Exhibit A (PDF) | Not available | Protective order allowing ISP subpoena to Comcast (Nov. 4, 2026) |
| 3:26-cv-01612 | Berlin | Verizon 5G Home | Exhibit A (PDF) | Not available | Order allowing ISP subpoena to Verizon 5G Home (Oct. 5, 2026) |
| 3:26-cv-01611 | Bristol | Frontier Communications | Exhibit A (PDF) | Not available | Order allowing ISP subpoena to Frontier Communications (Oct. 13, 2026) |
| 3:26-cv-01610 | Amston | Frontier Communications | Exhibit A (PDF) | Not available | Not available |
| 3:26-cv-01609 | Greenwich | Optimum Fiber | Exhibit A (PDF) | Not available | Not available |
If your letter names one of these case numbers, the letter itself shows your IP address and provider. You can email us a PDF or photo of it for a free, confidential review.
How is the District of Connecticut handling Strike 3 Holdings cases?
Connecticut judges grant Strike 3 Holdings’ requests for early ISP subpoenas, but the orders add conditions meant to protect the subscriber. The docket entries and orders show this pattern:
- Early ISP subpoenas are being allowed. About two to three weeks after filing, Strike 3 Holdings asks for permission to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the internet provider before the Rule 26(f) conference. These motions were granted from one day to about seven weeks later. Orders were signed by Judges Omar A. Williams, Michael P. Shea and Sarala V. Nagala, and by Magistrate Judge S. Dave Vatti.
- Long waiting periods. In the orders signed by Judge Williams, the provider must send notice to the subscriber within 30 days, the subscriber has 30 days from that notice to file a motion to quash or a request to proceed anonymously, and the provider may not release anything for 60 days. Judge Shea’s August 7, 2026 order gives the subscriber 60 days and bars Strike 3 Holdings from subpoenaing email addresses or phone numbers. Magistrate Judge Vatti’s November 4, 2026 order in 3:26-cv-01613 follows the same approach: the provider has 60 days to notify the subscriber, the subscriber has 60 more days to contest the subpoena, and email addresses and phone numbers are off limits without a further order.
- Privacy and settlement conditions. Judge Williams’ orders limit use of the subscriber’s name and address to the case and require documents containing them to be filed under seal. Orders by Judges Shea and Nagala require any settlement terms to be filed on the docket under seal, and require Strike 3 Holdings to state its reasons if it dismisses for any other reason. Judge Shea’s order warns that failure to comply will result in sanctions. The November 4 order also bars Strike 3 Holdings from disclosing the subscriber’s identifying information or threatening to disclose it.
- More time to serve. Under Rule 4(m), a defendant generally has to be served within 90 days. Strike 3 Holdings asked for and received extensions in many May, June, July and August cases. In 3:26-cv-01611, Judge Nagala’s order ties the service deadline to when the subscriber is identified.
How have the Connecticut cases ended so far?
Of the 23 cases filed from May 3 to November 9, 2026, the docket entries reviewed as of November 9, 2026 show:
- Settlement filings in 4 cases: notices of settlement with a sealed document on August 25, September 29 and November 2, 2026, and a settlement agreement filed under seal on August 28, 2026.
- Notices of voluntary dismissal in 5 cases: August 10, August 28, August 31, September 25 and October 14, 2026. Another May case had a notice of voluntary dismissal on November 3, 2026.
- Amended complaints: none. Our docket searches found no amended complaints filed in Connecticut Strike 3 Holdings cases from May 3 to November 9, 2026.
A dismissal or a sealed settlement in one case says nothing about how any other case will end. See whether your name can become public and how an anonymous resolution works.
Which internet providers appear in the Connecticut cases?
Comcast appears in 4 cases, Frontier in 2, and Cox, Optimum Fiber and Verizon 5G Home in 1 each.
| Provider | Cases | Our guide |
|---|---|---|
| Comcast (Xfinity) | 4 | Comcast Xfinity letter guide |
| Cox Communications | 1 | Cox letter guide |
| Frontier Communications | 2 | Frontier letter guide |
| Verizon 5G Home | 1 | Verizon letter guide |
| Optimum Fiber | 1 | Optimum letter guide |
| Not shown in the records reviewed | 14 | — |
Source: filed complaints, Exhibit As and subpoena orders reviewed as of November 9, 2026. In one case the order named only the IP address, and the provider was identified from the public IP registry.
Your own letter is the best source: the provider that sent it is the one that received the subpoena. See our ISP letter guide and the Antonelli Law ISP subpoena defense page.
What Connecticut Strike 3 Holdings news came out from May to November 2026?
- November 9, 2026: no new Strike 3 Holdings Connecticut cases have been filed since October 28.
- November 4, 2026: Magistrate Judge S. Dave Vatti granted an early ISP subpoena to Comcast in 3:26-cv-01613, with 60-day notice and objection periods.
- November 3, 2026: a notice of voluntary dismissal was filed in a May case.
- November 2, 2026: a notice of settlement was filed under seal in a July case.
- October 28, 2026: Strike 3 Holdings filed 1 new Connecticut case, 3:26-cv-01898, assigned to Judge Omar A. Williams. Its Exhibit A lists Glastonbury, CT and Cox Communications.
- October 5–14, 2026: Judges Williams and Nagala granted early ISP subpoenas in September cases, with conditions on sealing and settlement filings.
- September 22, 2026: Strike 3 Holdings filed 5 Connecticut cases, part of the activity covered in our September 2026 filings report.
- August 7, 2026: Judge Shea granted an early ISP subpoena with a 60-day period to contest it and a warning that failing to follow the conditions will result in sanctions.
- August 10 – October 14, 2026: notices of voluntary dismissal were filed in 5 cases and settlement filings were made in 3.
- June 15, 2026: nationally, 404 Media reported that a federal judge in California let Strike 3 Holdings’ case against Meta Platforms go forward. That case does not change the process for Connecticut subscribers.
What does this mean if you received an ISP letter in Connecticut?
A letter from your internet provider means the court has allowed Strike 3 Holdings to subpoena the provider for information about your account. It does not mean you have been found responsible for anything.
- Note the deadline. Connecticut orders give you a set period, often 30 or 60 days, to file a motion to quash or ask to proceed anonymously before your provider releases your information. Your letter states the date.
- Do not contact Strike 3 Holdings yourself. Anything you say can be used in the case.
- Do not ignore it. Our 2026 subpoena guide and guide on ignoring a subpoena walk through each step. Antonelli Law also explains motions to quash in BitTorrent cases and what happens if your ISP released your name.
Many people we talk with want a quiet, anonymous resolution. See how an anonymous resolution works. Court appearances are rarely necessary in Strike 3 Holdings cases, and Antonelli Law® also defends clients in court when needed.
What you Can Learn
Our short videos explain some of the important things to know about the Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit process, and your main options right now.
Many clients have told us our videos are very helpful. Click the image below to watch.
Clients we have represented in Connecticut
Antonelli Law® has represented clients across Connecticut in Strike 3 Holdings cases.
Our Connecticut clients have lived in Ansonia, Avon, Berlin, Branford, Bristol, Canton, Danbury, Danielson, Darien, Enfield, Farmington, Glastonbury, Greenwich, Groton, Hamden, Hartford, Killingworth, Lakeville, Manchester, Milford, New Britain, New Haven, Newington, Newtown, Norwalk, Old Greenwich, Orange, Portland, Ridgefield, Riverside, Rocky Hill, Sandy Hook, Shelton, Simsbury, Southbury, Southington, Stamford, Stonington, Stratford, Thomaston, Tolland, Vernon, Wallingford, Waterbury, West Hartford, Westport, Wethersfield, Windsor, and Wolcott.
Attorney Highlight: Melissa Ross
Melissa Brabender Ross lives outside Columbus and is a graduate of the Ohio State University Fisher College of Business. Melissa is Senior Associate at Antonelli Law®, and handles BitTorrent copyright defense, employment, and labor matters. She also works with Jeffrey Antonelli in the firm’s Drone/UAS Practice Group. She has appeared in federal, state and administrative proceedings, has extensive trial and deposition experience, and has won many contested substantive motions.
Originally from Ohio, Melissa graduated with honors from DePaul University College of Law and was elected to the Order of the Coif. She is licensed in Illinois and admitted to the General Bar of the Northern District of Illinois.
Phone: (312) 201-8310. Email: mross@antonelli-law.com.
Clients Appreciate Our Communication & Results
Here is just one client review of Melissa Ross. Click the link below for many others.
Posted by anonymous | June 27, 2025 | Hired Attorney
Client review of Melissa Ross
“Woking with Melissa was fantastic. She was really effective in communicating with me in layman terms; translating legalize, explaining the process and making me feel I was in really good hands. She was always reachable and extremely prompt in communicating the back and forth between opposing counsel. I couldn’t have asked for more from Melissa. Because of the time zone, I was catching her late in her evenings and she always responded – THANK YOU. Sometimes you get lucky with the initial interview process, and I certainly did.”
Got an ISP letter about a Strike 3 Holdings Connecticut case?
Most people we talk with want a quiet, anonymous resolution. We also defend cases in court when that is the better path. The first step is simply a free, confidential consultation about your letter and the documents in your case.
Call or tap: (312) 201-8310
Or reach us through our contact page and email a PDF or photo of your letter, or choose an attorney and book a time below.
Schedule Your Free Confidential Strike 3 Holdings Consultation
Speak directly with our team. Choose the attorney you prefer. A consultation is not a decision to go to court.
Melissa Ross
Alec Dardis
Jeffrey Antonelli
Paul Sanders
Frequently asked questions about Strike 3 Holdings Connecticut lawsuits
Do I need a Connecticut lawyer for a Strike 3 Holdings case?
No. Strike 3 Holdings Connecticut lawsuits are federal copyright cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Antonelli Law® handles Strike 3 Holdings matters in federal courts nationwide, including the District of Connecticut, and you can work with us by phone and email without visiting an office. Court appearances are rarely necessary, and we also defend clients in court when needed.
How many Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits were filed in Connecticut from May to November 2026?
Based on the dockets reviewed as of November 9, 2026, Strike 3 Holdings filed 23 Connecticut federal lawsuits from May 3 through November 9, 2026, up 27.8% from 18 in the six months before. No new Connecticut cases were filed from November 1 to November 9.
What is the newest Strike 3 Holdings Connecticut case?
The newest case reviewed is 3:26-cv-01898, filed October 28, 2026 and assigned to Judge Omar A. Williams, with Magistrate Judge S. Dave Vatti for referrals. Its Exhibit A lists an IP address in Glastonbury, CT on Cox Communications and 35 works.
Which Connecticut towns and providers appear in the latest Strike 3 Holdings Exhibit As?
The Exhibit As for the six cases filed September 22 and October 28, 2026 list Greenwich (Optimum Fiber), Amston (Frontier Communications), Bristol (Frontier Communications), Berlin (Verizon 5G Home), Unionville (Comcast Cable) and Glastonbury (Cox Communications), with 24 to 46 works each. The city is the plaintiff’s location estimate for the IP address.
How long does my internet provider wait before releasing my information in Connecticut?
In orders signed by Judge Omar A. Williams, the court required the provider to send you notice within 30 days of the subpoena and barred it from releasing your information for 60 days, giving you 30 days from the notice to file a motion to quash or a request to proceed anonymously. Other orders, including Magistrate Judge S. Dave Vatti’s November 4, 2026 order, give the subscriber 60 days. Check your own letter for your exact dates.
Which internet providers appear in the Connecticut cases?
Comcast appears in 4 cases, Frontier in 2, and Cox, Optimum Fiber and Verizon 5G Home in 1 each.
Can my name become public in a Connecticut Strike 3 Holdings case?
The orders allow Strike 3 Holdings to use the subscriber’s name and address only for the case and require documents with that information to be filed under seal for a period. Some judges also require any settlement terms to be filed under seal, and the November 4, 2026 order bars Strike 3 Holdings from threatening to disclose the subscriber’s identity.
What if I did not download anything?
The person who pays for the internet account is not always the person who used it. Shared Wi-Fi, roommates, guests and family members are common in these cases, and Connecticut orders have discussed concerns other courts have raised about misidentification. Discuss it in a free, confidential consultation before you respond to anyone.
Related reading
- Got a Comcast Xfinity letter about Strike 3 Holdings?
- Got a Cox letter about Strike 3 Holdings?
- Got a Frontier letter about Strike 3 Holdings?
- Got a Verizon letter about Strike 3 Holdings?
- Strike 3 Holdings subpoenas to ISPs allowed in Connecticut
- Strike 3 Holdings September 2026 filings
- The mid-August 2026 filing wave
- Strike 3 Holdings ISP notices
- Strike 3 Holdings ISP letter guide
- Strike 3 Holdings subpoena guide for 2026
- Should I ignore a Strike 3 Holdings subpoena?
- How an anonymous resolution works
- Will my name become public?
- Strike 3 Holdings FAQ
Court website: U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Statute: 17 U.S.C. § 504.
Data note: counts and rulings in this report are based on the federal dockets reviewed as of November 9, 2026. Docket descriptions vary, and full orders were available for only some Connecticut cases, so some rulings may be described differently than shown here. Published November 3, 2026. Last updated November 9, 2026.
This page is general information about Strike 3 Holdings and similar BitTorrent copyright cases. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different. Client reviews describe individual experiences. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Antonelli Law® defends people and businesses against copyright claims and does not represent copyright holders. Attorney advertising. Information is current as of November 9, 2026.
TORRENT DEFENDERS® is a federally registered trademark owned exclusively by the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Antonelli, Ltd. dba Antonelli Law®.
Are You A Strike 3 Holdings Defendant in Florida?
Malibu Media LLC vs. John Doe: 136 Lawsuits Filed
Who is Fallen Productions and Why Are They Suing Me?
About Author
JAntonelli
Jeffrey Antonelli is a member of the federal trial bar of the Northern District of Illinois and is admitted to numerous federal courts around the country. He has been a civil litigator nearly 25 years in a broad range of actions representing corporations and individuals as plaintiffs and defendants in state and federal court. Jeffrey has been interviewed by the media many times, including Bloomberg BNA, NBC, The New York Times, Chicago Lawyer, Chicago Tribune, and the longstanding lawyer’s publication Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. Prior to forming Antonelli Law Ltd. in 2007 Jeffrey worked for several litigation boutiques in Chicago’s Loop as well as a full service firm. His litigation experience includes hotly contested issues in intellectual property, business, insurance, and consumer fraud. He is an adviser to the Illinois Board of Higher Education Advisory Council for Private Business and Vocational Schools (PBVS), and was a member of the Illinois State Bar Association Education Law Section Council from 2012-2013. Jeffrey is especially proud of his work representing hundreds of students defrauded by improperly accredited educational institutions, including as certified class counsel. Before attending law school, Jeffrey was interested first in business, and then in biomedical ethics. These interests led him to graduate from the nation’s largest philosophy department at Loyola University in Chicago, where some of his favorite (and most challenging) subjects were cognitive science and philosophy of science. During college he held positions at the University of Chicago’s Ben May Institute; as a medical assistant for a University of Chicago foot and ankle surgeon; and volunteered in the emergency room at the University of Chicago Hospitals. These experiences led to studying health law at the DePaul College of Law where Jeffrey earned his law degree and a certificate in health law. At that time DePaul’s Institute for Health Law was consistently ranked in the top 10 health law specialty programs nationwide. During law school Jeffrey immersed himself in studying the practical and public policy aspects of health care through internships at the American Medical Association in Chicago, and on Capitol Hill at the Governmental Relations Office of the Association of American Medical Colleges in Washington, DC. Jeffrey has concentrated in civil litigation throughout his legal career, and is a member of the federal trial bar of the Northern District of Illinois, the Central District of Illinois federal court, and all federal courts of Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana. In addition, he is a member of the DuPage County Bar Association and the Illinois State Bar Association. Jeffrey prides himself on his strong personal ideals, passionate, ethical advocacy, and working hard to bring the best possible results for his clients. He also maintains a special interest in cases involving fraud. Whether due to good parenting, his family’s law enforcement employment, undergraduate studies in philosophy including ethics, or a fortuitous outcome of good breeding, one essence of Jeffrey’s character is a drive to root out the truth behind fraudulent practices.