Strike 3 Holdings North Carolina Lawsuit Trends: May–October 2026
Are Strike 3 Holdings North Carolina lawsuits increasing?
No. Based on the dockets reviewed as of November 3, 2026, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC filed 34 federal lawsuits in North Carolina between May 3 and November 2, 2026, down 20.9% from 43 in the prior six months.
- 20 cases were filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina and 14 in the Western District. None were filed in the Middle District.
- Strike 3 Holdings filed one batch a month: May 23, June 24, July 23, August 25 and September 30. No new North Carolina cases appeared in October or on November 1–2.
- Notices of voluntary dismissal were filed in 7 of the 34 cases, and amended complaints were filed in 3 older North Carolina cases.
If your internet provider sent you a letter about a Strike 3 Holdings case in North Carolina, this report shows how often these cases are being filed, how the two North Carolina federal courts are 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 North Carolina lawsuits were filed from May to October 2026?
Strike 3 Holdings filed 34 North Carolina federal lawsuits from May 3 to November 2, 2026, based on the dockets reviewed as of November 3, 2026. That compares with 43 cases in the prior six months (November 2025 to May 2, 2026), a decrease of 20.9%.
Both active courts were down. The Eastern District went from 24 cases to 20, and the Western District went from 19 to 14.
| Court | Prior six months | May 3 – Nov. 2, 2026 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eastern District of North Carolina | 24 | 20 | −16.7% |
| Western District of North Carolina | 19 | 14 | −26.3% |
| Middle District of North Carolina | 0 | 0 | — |
| Total | 43 | 34 | −20.9% |
Source: federal court dockets reviewed as of November 3, 2026. Counts are cases with Strike 3 Holdings, LLC as plaintiff, by filing date. Every case title was checked, and all 77 cases in both periods read “Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe.”
How did the monthly filings break down?
| Month | Filing date | Eastern District | Western District | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 3–31, 2026 | May 23 | 5 | 3 | 8 |
| June 2026 | June 24 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| July 2026 | July 23 | 6 | 4 | 10 |
| August 2026 | August 25 | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| September 2026 | September 30 | 3 | 5 | 8 |
| October 2026 | — | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| November 1–2, 2026 | — | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Source: federal court dockets reviewed as of November 3, 2026.
For comparison, the prior six months ran Nov. 22–30, 2025: 13, December 2025: 6, January 2026: 6, February 2026: 8, March 2026: 4, April 2026: 6. The largest batch in the current period was 10 cases on July 23. Our post on the September 30 North Carolina filings lists each of those 8 cases.
How are the North Carolina federal courts handling Strike 3 Holdings cases?
The Eastern and Western Districts handle each case separately. The docket entries we could review show this pattern:
- Early ISP subpoenas are being allowed. About one to three weeks after filing, Strike 3 Holdings asks for permission to serve a subpoena on the internet provider before the Rule 26(f) conference, using a Rule 45 subpoena. In the Eastern District, the July cases’ motions were filed August 15 and granted from August 17 to October 14, and the September cases’ motions were granted October 9. In the Western District, the docket entries we could review show orders granting these motions in two July cases on August 21 and in two September cases on October 9.
- Eastern District judges. The in-period Eastern District cases were assigned to Judges James C. Dever III, Richard E. Myers II, Louise W. Flanagan and Terrence W. Boyle. The subpoena orders we could read were signed by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II. Several August and September Eastern District cases also show docket entries selecting the case for mediation.
- More time to serve. Under Rule 4(m), a defendant generally has to be served within 90 days. On October 21, 2026, Strike 3 Holdings asked for more time in several July cases in both districts, and the courts granted those requests from October 22 to October 26. In two July Eastern District cases, the court instead sent a notice to counsel on October 22 about failure to make service.
- Voluntary dismissals. Notices of voluntary dismissal were filed in 7 of the 34 in-period cases: one on August 13, one on August 18, four on August 27 and one on October 20. The notices do not say why a case ended.
Amended complaints in North Carolina
An amended complaint usually means Strike 3 Holdings has received the subscriber information from the internet provider and now names the person it believes is responsible. Our docket searches found 3 amended complaints filed in North Carolina from May 3 to November 2, 2026, all in cases filed before May. The two copies we obtained identify the defendant only as a “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address” with the name and home address redacted, and both name AT&T as the provider. We have posted those redacted copies below.
| Case | Amended complaint filed | What it shows | Document |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3:25-cv-01038 (W.D.N.C., filed Dec. 31, 2025) | May 23, 2026 | AT&T Inc.; 24 works; name and address redacted | Redacted amended complaint (PDF) |
| 5:26-cv-00110 (E.D.N.C., filed Feb. 20, 2026) | July 10, 2026 | AT&T Inc.; 40 works; name and address redacted | Redacted amended complaint (PDF) |
| 3:25-cv-00943 (W.D.N.C., filed Nov. 22, 2025) | August 17, 2026 | Copy not available to us as of November 3, 2026 | — |
Source: federal court dockets and the filed amended complaints, reviewed as of November 3, 2026. Names and addresses are redacted in the filed documents.
See what a Strike 3 Holdings amended complaint means and whether your name can become public.
Which internet providers appear in the North Carolina cases?
North Carolina dockets list the defendant only as “Doe,” without the IP address, so the provider cannot be read from the case title. For the in-period cases where we could review the complaint and its exhibit, these providers appear:
| Provider | Cases | Where |
|---|---|---|
| Spectrum | 5 | 4 Western District (Charlotte), 1 Eastern District (Garner) |
| AT&T Internet | 3 | 2 Eastern District (Raleigh), 1 Western District (May 23 case) |
| Verizon 5G Home | 1 | Western District (Charlotte) |
| Not shown in the records we could review free of charge | 25 | — |
Source: filed complaints and exhibits reviewed as of November 3, 2026, including the September 30, 2026 cases listed in our North Carolina filings post.
Your own letter is the best source: the provider that sent it is the one that received the subpoena. See our guides to a Spectrum subpoena notice, an AT&T Internet letter and a Verizon letter, our ISP letter guide, and the Antonelli Law ISP subpoena defense page.
What North Carolina Strike 3 Holdings news came out from May to November 2026?
- October 21–26, 2026: the courts granted more time to serve in several July cases.
- October 20, 2026: a notice of voluntary dismissal was filed in a May Western District case.
- October 12, 2026: we published a case-by-case list of the September 30 filings, with the provider named in each case.
- October 9, 2026: both districts granted early ISP subpoenas in September cases.
- September 30, 2026: Strike 3 Holdings filed 8 North Carolina cases, 5 in Charlotte and 3 in the Eastern District.
- August 17, 2026: an amended complaint was filed in a Western District case from November 2025.
- August 13–27, 2026: notices of voluntary dismissal were filed in six in-period cases.
- July 10, 2026: an amended complaint with the defendant’s name redacted was filed in an Eastern District case.
- 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 North Carolina subscribers.
What does this mean if you received an ISP letter in North Carolina?
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. Your letter gives the date the provider plans to release your information. In North Carolina, the subpoena orders have come within weeks of filing, so letters for the August and September cases may already be arriving.
- 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.
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 North Carolina
Antonelli Law® has represented 69 clients who live in North Carolina in Strike 3 Holdings cases.
Our North Carolina clients have lived in Apex, Arden, Belmont, Carrboro, Cary, Chapel Hill, Charlotte, Clayton, Clemmons, Concord, Fayetteville, Franklinton, Fuquay-Varina, Garner, Greensboro, Hendersonville, Huntersville, Indian Trail, Jacksonville, Lexington, Lillington, Matthews, Morrisville, Pinehurst, Pittsboro, Raleigh, Randleman, Rocky Mount, Salisbury, Swannanoa, Tarboro, Wake Forest, Waynesville, Wilmington, Winston-Salem, and Wrightsville Beach.
Attorney Highlight: Paul Sanders
Paul Sanders, an Associate at Antonelli Law®, defends people in BitTorrent copyright cases and in satellite and cable piracy matters. His work includes depositions, arbitrations, and cases in both state and federal court. He also mediated more than two dozen cases through the Circuit Court of Cook County Mediation Program.
Paul graduated with honors from the John Marshall Law School, earning both his law degree and a certificate in intellectual property. While there, he was Lead Articles Editor of the school’s intellectual property law review and taught oral argument to first- and second-year students. He is licensed in Illinois and admitted to the General Bar of the Northern District of Illinois. He handles the BitTorrent consultation from start to finish: he reads the ISP letter with you, then either pursues a quiet settlement or helps defend the case in court, whichever fits.
Phone: (312) 201-8310. Email: paul@antonelli-law.com.
Clients Appreciate Our Communication & Results
Here is just one client review of Paul Sanders. Click the link below for many others.
Posted by anonymous | October 14, 2025 | Hired Attorney
Great Attorney
“This experience was one of the most stressful experiences I have ever dealt with. Mostly because it came out of no where and I have never been in trouble with the law like this before. From the beginning, Mr. Sanders was so nice and calming. I know he stayed on the phone with longer than he had to just to make sure I was ok. Although I remained stressed, he put me at ease with his knowledge, confidence, and sincerity. The entire process took about 2 1/2 weeks and I was so grateful when it was over. He is a great attorney.”
Got an ISP letter about a Strike 3 Holdings North Carolina 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 or upload your documents 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.
Paul Sanders
Melissa Ross
Jeffrey Antonelli
Alec Dardis
Frequently asked questions about Strike 3 Holdings North Carolina lawsuits
Do I need a North Carolina lawyer for a Strike 3 Holdings case?
No. Strike 3 Holdings North Carolina lawsuits are federal copyright cases. Antonelli Law® handles Strike 3 Holdings matters in federal courts nationwide, including the Eastern and Western Districts of North Carolina, and you can work with us by phone, email, and secure upload without visiting an office.
How many Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits were filed in North Carolina from May to October 2026?
Based on the dockets reviewed as of November 3, 2026, Strike 3 Holdings filed 34 North Carolina federal lawsuits from May 3 through November 2, 2026: 20 in the Eastern District and 14 in the Western District. That is down 20.9% from 43 in the prior six months.
Which courts handle Strike 3 Holdings cases in North Carolina?
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (Raleigh and Wilmington dockets) and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte dockets). We found no Strike 3 Holdings cases in the Middle District of North Carolina in either period.
Which internet providers appear in the North Carolina cases?
North Carolina dockets list the defendant only as “Doe,” so the provider is not in the case title. In the in-period complaints we could review, Spectrum appears in 5 cases, AT&T Internet in 3 and Verizon 5G Home in 1. Your own letter tells you which provider received the subpoena.
Did Strike 3 Holdings drop any North Carolina cases?
Notices of voluntary dismissal were filed in 7 of the 34 cases filed from May 3 to November 2, 2026. A notice does not say why the case ended, and it says nothing about anyone else’s case.
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 North Carolina filings: the September 30, 2026 cases
- Strike 3 Holdings in North Carolina
- Got a Spectrum subpoena notice about Strike 3 Holdings?
- Got an AT&T Internet letter about Strike 3 Holdings?
- Got a Verizon letter about Strike 3 Holdings?
- Strike 3 Holdings September 2026 filings
- The mid-August 2026 filing wave
- What a Strike 3 Holdings amended complaint means
- 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 websites: Eastern District of North Carolina and Western District of North Carolina. Statute: 17 U.S.C. § 504.
Data note: counts and rulings in this report are based on the federal dockets reviewed as of November 3, 2026. Docket descriptions vary by court, and docket entries were available for only some North Carolina cases, so some rulings may be described differently than shown here. Published November 3, 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 3, 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 Cases Filed in Florida State Court
BODYGUARD PRODUCTIONS INC Suing in NEW YORK, HAWAII, COLORADO, ILLINOIS
MALIBU MEDIA LLC Cases Ratcheting Up in New Jersey, Filings Continue – ISP Subpoena Defense by Antonelli Law
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.