We’ve talked about the lawyers, the judges, and the clients caught in the copyright troll machine. We’ve even discussed the duplicitous ISPs. But what if the solution to this whole saga doesn’t lie within the courtroom at all? What if the key to stopping the “gravy train” is held by an entirely different kind of power broker: the tech giants or the very people who write the laws?
Let’s face it: the entire Strike 3 business model hinges on one thing—the fear of a “Google search.” The threat of public embarrassment and the potential for a boss, a family member, or a future employer to find a federal lawsuit tied to your name is the ultimate leverage. So what if you removed that leverage?
The Power of the Index: Can Google, Meta, or Microsoft Be the Hero?
Imagine for a moment that companies like Google, Microsoft (through Bing), and Yahoo decided to make a stand. The PACER system, while public, isn’t exactly a user-friendly website. Its records are indexed by search engines, which is how a simple name search can yield a court case.
What if these tech giants collectively decided to de-index these specific types of lawsuits? What if a search for “John Doe” and a specific case number no longer returned a prominent, front-page result? This wouldn’t be an act of censorship; it would be a policy decision to protect user privacy from a system that is being exploited for financial gain. They could argue that the public’s right to know is outweighed by the individual’s right to privacy, especially when the case is a mass-filing tactic and not a traditional legal dispute. Such a move would pull the rug out from under the entire business model, forcing the plaintiffs to actually litigate their cases rather than just threaten to.
Legislating Away the Leverage
Another powerful force could be the legislature. The legal system itself could be changed to better protect the privacy of “John Doe” defendants. A new law could be passed that shields the identity of the accused from public view until a motion to unseal is granted and a judge determines there is probable cause and a legitimate legal reason to proceed. Or, even more drastically, a law could be enacted to make it illegal for a company to sue “John Doe” defendants based solely on an IP address.
This would be a direct attack on the copyright troll model. It would force a more rigorous legal process, one where the plaintiff would have to present a more compelling case than just “we found this IP address.” It would remove the “rubber stamp” from the judges’ desks and require a higher standard of proof before someone’s life is potentially upended.
A Double-Edged Sword for the Gravy Train
Either of these solutions would be a monumental shift. It would be a blow not only to the plaintiffs like Strike 3 Holdings, but also to the defense attorneys who have built their businesses on managing these cases. The gravy train would grind to a halt, and both sides of the legal coin would have to find a new way to earn a living.
It’s a speculative scenario, to be sure. But in a world where wealth extraction through the legal system is becoming more and more brazen, a creative and decisive solution is needed. The power to dismantle this particular machine may not lie in a legal brief, but rather in a line of code or a new law. The question is: who will be the first to make a move?
Strike 3 Litigation 
Leave a comment