Strike 3 Holdings North Carolina Filings: 8 Charlotte and Raleigh Cases – What to Do?
Strike 3 Holdings North Carolina filings include 8 new John Doe copyright cases filed on September 30, 2026: 5 in the Western District of North Carolina and 3 in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Each complaint names an internet subscriber only by an IP address. A filing is not a finding that the account holder downloaded anything.
This Torrent Defenders® explainer is educational. It is not legal advice. Antonelli Law® defends people who receive these papers. We do not represent copyright holders.
The filing date, docket, IP address, city, ISP, and works count in the table below come from the official federal court records including the Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit Exhibit A and the complaint in each case – found on Pacer.gov. . Each row below links both documents so you can check them yourself. You can register for an account with Pacer.gov right here – no law degree required.
What the Letter usually is
An ISP letter is usually notice that the provider such as Verizon 5G Home or Spectrum was ordered to identify an account tied to an IP address and timestamp. It is not a summons that names you as a defendant. The date on the letter is often the ISP’s deadline to respond to the subpoena, not your deadline to answer a complaint.
What You can Do Now
- Keep the provider’s letter and the envelope or email it came in.
- Write down the full docket number and the date on the letter.
- Do not contact Strike 3 Holdings or its lawyers yourself before you understand your options.
- Do not delete files or change equipment in a way that could look like destroying evidence.
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.
The filing date, docket, IP address, city, ISP, and works count in the tables below come from Exhibit A and the complaint in each case. Each row links both documents so you can check them yourself. The ISPs named in this group are AT&T Internet, Spectrum, and Verizon 5G Home.
Strike 3 Holdings North Carolina Cases — Western District
Filed September 30, 2026, in the Charlotte Division. Every Exhibit A in this group lists Charlotte.
| Filed | Docket | IP address | City | ISP | Works listed | Court documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/30/2026 | 3:26-cv-00824 | 75.181.0.82 | Charlotte, NC | Spectrum | 29 | Exhibit A | Complaint |
| 9/30/2026 | 3:26-cv-00825 | 75.207.208.236 | Charlotte, NC | Verizon 5G Home | 32 | Exhibit A | Complaint |
| 9/30/2026 | 3:26-cv-00826 | 65.188.72.249 | Charlotte, NC | Spectrum | 43 | Exhibit A | Complaint |
| 9/30/2026 | 3:26-cv-00827 | 65.188.73.0 | Charlotte, NC | Spectrum | 44 | Exhibit A | Complaint |
| 9/30/2026 | 3:26-cv-00828 | 65.188.72.237 | Charlotte, NC | Spectrum | 26 | Exhibit A | Complaint |
Eastern District of North Carolina — 3 cases
Filed September 30, 2026, in the Western Division (Raleigh). Exhibit A lists Raleigh and Garner.
| Filed | Docket | IP address | City | ISP | Works listed | Court documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9/30/2026 | 5:26-cv-00754 | 108.66.214.72 | Raleigh, NC | AT&T Internet | 41 | Exhibit A | Complaint |
| 9/30/2026 | 5:26-cv-00755 | 172.2.201.35 | Raleigh, NC | AT&T Internet | 30 | Exhibit A | Complaint |
| 9/30/2026 | 5:26-cv-00756 | 75.183.224.114 | Garner, NC | Spectrum | 27 | Exhibit A | Complaint |
What Exhibit A shows
Exhibit A is the plaintiff’s list attached to each complaint. It states a location, an IP address, an ISP name, a total “works infringed” count, and a line for each title with a UTC timestamp and a copyright registration number. The location is where the plaintiff says the IP address geolocates. It is not a street address.
What usually happens next
A complaint filed in court does not mean a letter goes out that day. Strike 3 Holdings first asks the judge for permission to serve a subpoena on the internet provider. If the judge allows it, the provider writes to its subscriber, usually with the case number, the IP address, and a date. That date is normally the provider’s own date for responding to the subpoena. It is not a deadline to answer a complaint that names you. Subpoena timing is covered on its own page: Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoena orders.
Clients we have represented in North Carolina
Antonelli Law has represented many clients in federal copyright matters in North Carolina. These locations include Charlotte, Raleigh, Durham, Greensboro, Winston-Salem, Cary, Apex, Morrisville, Chapel Hill, Fayetteville, Wilmington, Asheville, and other North Carolina location
Posted by anonymous | September 30, 2026 | Hired Attorney
Highly Recommend Alec Van Dardis
“We had a consultation with Alec and he explained our options in detail. He made us feel comfortable and gave us time to ask a lot of questions. At the end of the consultation we made another appointment so we could decide which option to take. We felt that we were in good hands starting with consultation. Alec was thorough in explaining every step, what we needed to do and the timing. He was a great communicator, always followed up and very professional. We are very grateful for all Alec did to get this case closed. We would highly recommend Alec to others that need his expertise.”
Schedule Your Free Confidential Strike 3 Holdings Consultation
Speak directly with our team. Choose the attorney you prefer.
Jeffrey Antonelli
Alec Dardis
Paul Antonelli
Melissa Ross
This post is legal information, not legal advice for any one case. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
TORRENT DEFENDERS® is a federally registered trademark owned exclusively by the Law Offices of Jeffrey J. Antonelli, Ltd.
Related reading
- Strike 3 Holdings ISP subpoena orders
- Strike 3 Holdings September 2026 filings
- Strike 3 Holdings amended complaint: later stage
Share! Save Someone From Being Sued
LHF Productions Lawsuits in Utah, Maryland, New York
UN4 Productions Inc Sues Over “Boyka: Undisputed” – Free Consultation With Antonelli Law Defense
Chicago Defendant Fights ME2 Productions Movie Lawsuit On His Own – Court Says No But Can Try Motion to Quash Subpoena Again – Antonelli Law Defense
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.