Strike 3 Holdings Massachusetts Lawsuit Trends: May–November 2026
Are Strike 3 Holdings Massachusetts lawsuits slowing?
Yes, slightly. Based on the dockets reviewed as of November 9, 2026, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed 65 federal lawsuits in Massachusetts from May 10 through November 9, 2026, down 3.0% from 67 in the prior six months.
- Strike 3 Holdings filed one batch each month, all in Boston. The newest batch, 7 cases, was filed on October 28, 2026. No new Massachusetts cases were filed from October 29 through November 9.
- The Exhibit A attached to each October 28 complaint lists Verizon Fios in 5 cases and Comcast Cable in 2, with 222 works listed in total.
- Amended complaints were filed in four Massachusetts cases during the period, and judges continued to grant early subpoenas with a 30-day window for the subscriber to respond.
Last updated November 9, 2026.
If your internet provider sent you a letter about a Strike 3 Holdings case in Massachusetts, this report shows how often these cases are being filed, how Boston judges are handling them, 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 Massachusetts lawsuits were filed from May through November 2026?
Strike 3 Holdings filed 65 Massachusetts federal lawsuits from May 10 through November 9, 2026, based on the dockets reviewed as of November 9, 2026. That compares with 67 cases in the prior six months (November 10, 2025 to May 9, 2026), a decrease of 3.0%.
The pace has been steady: one filing day a month, with 7 to 14 cases each time.
| Court | Prior six months | May 10 – Nov. 9, 2026 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| District of Massachusetts (Boston, 1:) | 67 | 65 | −3.0% |
Source: federal court dockets reviewed as of November 9, 2026. Counts are cases with Strike 3 Holdings, LLC as plaintiff, by filing date. The earliest prior-period Massachusetts filing in the dockets reviewed was November 24, 2025.
How did the monthly filings break down?
| Month | Filing date | Cases |
|---|---|---|
| May 10–31, 2026 | May 15 | 13 |
| June 2026 | June 16 | 9 |
| July 2026 | July 16 | 14 |
| August 2026 | August 18 | 13 |
| September 2026 | September 25 | 9 |
| October 2026 | October 28 | 7 |
| November 1–9, 2026 | — | 0 |
| Total | 65 |
Source: federal court dockets reviewed as of November 9, 2026.
For comparison, the prior six months ran Nov. 24–30, 2025: 19, December 2025: 13, January 2026: 10, February 2026: 7, March 2026: 11, April 2026: 7.
We covered the September 25 batch in our September 2026 filings report, and Massachusetts subpoena timing in our ISP notice timing guide.
Strike 3 Holdings Massachusetts cases filed in October and November 2026
These are the Strike 3 Holdings Massachusetts lawsuits filed from October 1 through November 9, 2026. All seven were filed on October 28, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston, and each is captioned Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe. The “1:” at the start of each docket number is the Boston courthouse location. No other Massachusetts cases were filed in October, and none were filed from October 29 through November 9.
The IP address, city, provider, and number of works come from the Exhibit A attached to each complaint. The city on an Exhibit A is the plaintiff’s estimate of where the IP address was located. It is not necessarily where any particular person lives, and an IP address alone does not show who used an internet connection. Links in the Docket column open each Exhibit A and complaint.
| Filed | Docket | IP address | City | ISP | Works listed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct. 28, 2026 | 1:26-cv-14871 Exhibit A | Complaint |
24.147.131.193 | Weymouth, MA | Comcast Cable | 24 |
| Oct. 28, 2026 | 1:26-cv-14872 Exhibit A | Complaint |
173.76.79.236 | Stoughton, MA | Verizon Fios | 25 |
| Oct. 28, 2026 | 1:26-cv-14873 Exhibit A | Complaint |
173.48.123.42 | Woburn, MA | Verizon Fios | 44 |
| Oct. 28, 2026 | 1:26-cv-14874 Exhibit A | Complaint |
173.48.190.195 | Ashland, MA | Verizon Fios | 34 |
| Oct. 28, 2026 | 1:26-cv-14875 Exhibit A | Complaint |
73.219.16.123 | Bridgewater, MA | Comcast Cable | 29 |
| Oct. 28, 2026 | 1:26-cv-14876 Exhibit A | Complaint |
108.49.191.190 | Sudbury, MA | Verizon Fios | 27 |
| Oct. 28, 2026 | 1:26-cv-14877 Exhibit A | Complaint |
71.174.224.145 | Methuen, MA | Verizon Fios | 39 |
Source: complaints and Exhibit A filed in the District of Massachusetts on October 28, 2026.
Which judges are assigned to the October 28 Massachusetts cases?
| Docket | District judge | Magistrate judge | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1:26-cv-14871 | Judge Julia E. Kobick | None assigned | Open. No early-subpoena order yet. |
| 1:26-cv-14872 | Judge Richard G. Stearns | None assigned | Open. No early-subpoena order yet. |
| 1:26-cv-14873 | Judge Leo T. Sorokin | None assigned | Open. No early-subpoena order yet. |
| 1:26-cv-14874 | Judge Myong J. Joun | None assigned | Open. No early-subpoena order yet. |
| 1:26-cv-14875 | Judge Brian E. Murphy | None assigned | Open. No early-subpoena order yet. |
| 1:26-cv-14876 | Judge Richard G. Stearns | None assigned | Open. No early-subpoena order yet. |
| 1:26-cv-14877 | Judge Patti B. Saris | None assigned | Open. No early-subpoena order yet. |
The October 28 cases are spread across six district judges. Judge Richard G. Stearns drew two of them, 1:26-cv-14872 and 1:26-cv-14876. Judges Julia E. Kobick, Brian E. Murphy, and Patti B. Saris have each handled earlier Massachusetts Strike 3 Holdings cases covered below, so their past orders are a guide to what may come next. No magistrate judge was listed on these dockets. In earlier Massachusetts batches, the next step after filing was a request for leave to subpoena the internet provider, followed by an order on that request.
What do the October 28 Exhibit As show?
- Providers. Verizon Fios appears in 5 of the 7 cases (Stoughton, Woburn, Ashland, Sudbury, and Methuen). Comcast Cable appears in 2 (Weymouth and Bridgewater).
- Works listed. Each Exhibit A lists 24 to 44 works, 222 in total. The highest count is 44 works in 1:26-cv-14873 (Woburn).
- Hit dates. Most of the listed activity falls between May and October 2026. Two exhibits reach further back: 1:26-cv-14873 starts January 5, 2024, and 1:26-cv-14876 starts November 13, 2025. The latest hit date is October 21, 2026, one week before filing.
- Locations. The listed cities are spread around Greater Boston, from Methuen in the Merrimack Valley to Weymouth and Bridgewater on the South Shore.
Court documents for the Massachusetts cases
These are the court documents we have for the October 28, 2026 Strike 3 Holdings Massachusetts cases. Each opens as a PDF.
| Docket | City | ISP | Exhibit A | Complaint | Orders/other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1:26-cv-14871 | Weymouth | Comcast Cable | Exhibit A (PDF) | Complaint (PDF) | Not available |
| 1:26-cv-14872 | Stoughton | Verizon Fios | Exhibit A (PDF) | Complaint (PDF) | Not available |
| 1:26-cv-14873 | Woburn | Verizon Fios | Exhibit A (PDF) | Complaint (PDF) | Not available |
| 1:26-cv-14874 | Ashland | Verizon Fios | Exhibit A (PDF) | Complaint (PDF) | Not available |
| 1:26-cv-14875 | Bridgewater | Comcast Cable | Exhibit A (PDF) | Complaint (PDF) | Not available |
| 1:26-cv-14876 | Sudbury | Verizon Fios | Exhibit A (PDF) | Complaint (PDF) | Not available |
| 1:26-cv-14877 | Methuen | Verizon Fios | Exhibit A (PDF) | Complaint (PDF) | Not available |
Redacted copies of the amended complaints filed in 1:26-cv-11363, 1:26-cv-12215, and 1:26-cv-12718 are linked in the amended-complaint table below. If your letter lists one of these docket numbers, you can email us a PDF or photo of it through our contact page for a free, confidential review.
Did any Massachusetts cases reach the amended-complaint stage?
Yes. Between May 10 and November 9, 2026, amended complaints were filed in four Massachusetts cases. In most courts, an amended complaint means Strike 3 Holdings has received the subscriber information from the internet provider and is naming the person it believes is responsible. We post these documents only in redacted form.
| Case | Judge | Amended complaint filed | Document |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1:26-cv-11363 | Judge William G. Young | September 17, 2026 | Redacted copy (PDF) |
| 1:26-cv-12215 | Judge Angel Kelley | September 22, 2026 | Redacted copy (PDF) |
| 1:26-cv-12718 | Judge Patti B. Saris | October 15, 2026 | Redacted copy (PDF) |
| 1:25-cv-13974 | Judge Richard G. Stearns | July 2 and July 7, 2026 | Not posted |
Source: federal court dockets reviewed as of November 9, 2026. Copies are posted only where the defendant’s name and address were redacted in the court filing.
Our guide to Strike 3 Holdings amended complaints explains this step and what it means for the person named.
How are Massachusetts judges handling Strike 3 Holdings cases?
The first step is the same in nearly every case. Strike 3 Holdings asks for leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) to subpoena the internet provider for the subscriber’s name and address under Rule 45. Examples from this period:
- Judge Angel Kelley, subpoena with restrictions. In orders entered from May through October 2026, including 1:26-cv-12215 (June 9), 1:26-cv-13825 (September 8) and 1:26-cv-14384 (October 1), Judge Kelley granted the subpoena but limited it to the subscriber’s name and address. The provider has 15 days to notify the subscriber, who then has 30 days to move to quash or ask to proceed anonymously. The provider may not turn anything over during that period.
- Judge Julia E. Kobick. Orders entered August 11 and 12, 2026 (1:26-cv-13288 and 1:26-cv-13289) used the same 15-day and 30-day structure.
- Magistrate Judge Paul G. Levenson, protective order. In 1:26-cv-13285 (August 17, 2026), the court granted the subpoena subject to an attached protective order and a notice to the defendant, and warned that failure to comply could result in sanctions.
- Protective orders. Protective orders were entered in at least 15 cases during the period, most recently in 1:26-cv-14387 on October 30, 2026.
- Motion to quash. A motion to quash was filed on October 14, 2026 in 1:26-cv-13827. We did not find a ruling on it in the dockets reviewed.
- More time to serve. Judge Brian E. Murphy extended Strike 3 Holdings’ deadline to serve in 1:26-cv-12213 to October 12, 2026 (order entered August 14, 2026).
In 1:26-cv-13829, Strike 3 Holdings filed a notice of settlement and dismissal with prejudice on October 8, 2026. Our docket searches for May 10 to November 9, 2026 found no orders to show cause entered in Massachusetts Strike 3 Holdings cases, and no severance orders, default judgments or denials of early subpoenas. We counted only orders entered by the court in that window, not filings by the parties.
Which internet providers appear in the Massachusetts cases?
Verizon Fios appears in 5 of the seven October 28, 2026 cases and Comcast Cable in 2. In earlier orders from this period, Verizon Fios appeared most often (for example in 1:26-cv-13825, 1:26-cv-13827, 1:26-cv-14384 and 1:26-cv-13285), and Astound Broadband/RCN appeared in 1:26-cv-13289. See our ISP notice guide and the Antonelli Law ISP subpoena defense page for what each provider’s notice looks like.
What Massachusetts Strike 3 Holdings news came out from May to November 2026?
- October 30, 2026: a protective order was entered in 1:26-cv-14387, one of the September 25 cases.
- October 29 – November 9, 2026: no new Massachusetts cases were filed.
- October 28, 2026: Strike 3 Holdings filed 7 Massachusetts cases, 1:26-cv-14871 through 1:26-cv-14877, involving Verizon Fios and Comcast Cable subscribers in Weymouth, Stoughton, Woburn, Ashland, Bridgewater, Sudbury, and Methuen.
- October 14, 2026: a motion to quash was filed in 1:26-cv-13827.
- September–October 2026: amended complaints were filed in 1:26-cv-11363, 1:26-cv-12215 and 1:26-cv-12718.
- September 25, 2026: Strike 3 Holdings filed 9 Massachusetts cases (our report).
- 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 Massachusetts subscribers.
What does this mean if you received an ISP letter in Massachusetts?
A letter from your internet provider means a judge has allowed Strike 3 Holdings to ask for the name and address on your account. It does not mean you have been found responsible for anything.
- Note the date. In Massachusetts you generally have 30 days from when the provider serves you to file a motion with the court.
- Do not contact Strike 3 Holdings yourself. Anything you say can be used in the case.
- Check your case. The letter lists the docket number, which starts with “1:” for Boston.
- Do not ignore it. Our ISP letter guide, 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, and court appearances are rarely necessary in these cases. Antonelli Law® also defends clients in court when that is needed or is the better path. See how an anonymous resolution works and whether your name can become public.
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 Massachusetts
Antonelli Law® has represented clients across Massachusetts in Strike 3 Holdings cases.
Our Massachusetts clients have lived in Arlington, Billerica, Boston, Braintree, Brockton, Brookfield, Brookline, Burlington, Cambridge, Chicopee, Danvers, Devens, Dorchester, East Boston, Framingham, Georgetown, Holliston, Hudson, Lawrence, Lexington, Littleton, Lowell, Malden, Mansfield, Melrose, Milton, Needham, New Bedford, Newton, Newtonville, North Andover, North Chelmsford, North Weymouth, Peabody, Plymouth, Quincy, Rochester, Roslindale, Salem, Saugus, Sharon, Somerset, Somerville, Stoughton, Sudbury, Vineyard Haven, Wakefield, Waltham, Wayland, West Newton, Westwood, Whitman, Winthrop, and Woburn.
Attorney Highlight: Jeffrey Antonelli
Jeffrey Antonelli founded Antonelli Law® in Chicago in 2007 and still leads its BitTorrent Copyright Defense Group, along with its Drone/UAS Practice Group. He has spent nearly 25 years as a civil litigator in state and federal court, on both the plaintiff and defense side, for individuals and corporations alike. Earlier in his career he worked at several Chicago Loop litigation boutiques and a full-service firm, on software, data center contracts, business, insurance and consumer fraud disputes.
He belongs to the trial bar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and is admitted in many other federal courts nationwide. Jeffrey studied philosophy at Loyola University Chicago, then earned his law degree, with a health law certificate, at DePaul. Outlets including The New York Times, NBC, Bloomberg BNA, the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Lawyer and the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin have interviewed him.
Phone: (312) 201-8310. Email: Jeffrey@Antonelli-Law.com.
Clients Appreciate Our Communication & Results
Here is just one client review of Jeffrey Antonelli. Click the link below for many others.
Posted by John | August 05, 2026 | Hired Attorney
great experience with Antonelli
“I hired Jeffrey Antonelli for a copyright infringement issue (Strike3) in Massachusetts. It was a very good decision. He has dealt with many such cases and immediately put me at ease. He ended up negotiating a settlement that was much less than what I told him was my limit. He understood my privacy concerns and ensured that my name stayed out of any communication with opposing counsel, court filings etc. The whole issue was wrapped up within 3 weeks. He charges a non-negligible fee, but it is 100% worth it if you want to settle quickly and quietly and move on.”
Got an ISP letter about a Strike 3 Holdings Massachusetts 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 email us a PDF or photo of your letter through our contact page, 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.
Jeffrey Antonelli
Alec Dardis
Paul Sanders
Melissa Ross
Frequently asked questions about Strike 3 Holdings Massachusetts lawsuits
Do I need a Massachusetts lawyer for a Strike 3 Holdings case?
No. Strike 3 Holdings Massachusetts lawsuits are federal copyright cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston. Antonelli Law® handles Strike 3 Holdings matters in federal courts nationwide, including the District of Massachusetts, 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 that is needed.
How many Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits were filed in Massachusetts from May through November 2026?
Based on the dockets reviewed as of November 9, 2026, Strike 3 Holdings filed 65 Massachusetts federal lawsuits from May 10 through November 9, 2026, compared with 67 in the prior six months, a 3.0% decrease.
What are the newest Strike 3 Holdings Massachusetts cases?
Strike 3 Holdings filed 7 cases on October 28, 2026: 1:26-cv-14871 through 1:26-cv-14877. Their Exhibit As list Weymouth, Stoughton, Woburn, Ashland, Bridgewater, Sudbury, and Methuen, with Verizon Fios in 5 cases and Comcast Cable in 2. No new Massachusetts cases were filed from October 29 through November 9, 2026.
Which court handles Strike 3 Holdings cases in Massachusetts?
All 65 cases in the latest six months were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston, with docket numbers beginning “1:”.
How long do I have after my provider notifies me?
The provider has 15 days after it is served to notify the subscriber, and the subscriber then has 30 days to file a motion to quash or contest the subpoena, including a request to proceed anonymously. The provider may not turn over information during that time. Use the dates in your own letter.
Did any Massachusetts cases reach the amended-complaint stage?
Yes. In the dockets reviewed, amended complaints were filed between May 10 and November 9, 2026 in four Massachusetts cases: 1:25-cv-13974, 1:26-cv-11363, 1:26-cv-12215 and 1:26-cv-12718.
How do I send you my Massachusetts letter?
Use our contact page to reach us, then email a PDF or a clear photo of the letter, or call (312) 201-8310. The consultation is free and confidential.
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. That difference can matter a great deal, and it is worth discussing in a free, confidential consultation before you respond to anyone.
Related reading
- Strike 3 Holdings ISP notice timing, including Massachusetts
- Strike 3 Holdings September 2026 filings, including 9 Massachusetts cases
- The mid-August 2026 filing wave
- What a Strike 3 Holdings amended complaint means
- 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 websites: District of Massachusetts. 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 by court, so some entries may be described differently than shown here. 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®.
Strike 3 Holdings Florida: 13 New Cases (Free Guide)
Criminal Productions Inc Hits the Suburbs of Sin City Vegas & Henderson
Criminal Productions Inc. Targets Account Holders
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.