Fisher et al v. Meta Platforms, Inc — Court Orders Supplemental Briefing on DMCA Section 1201(a) Motion to Dismiss After Noting Recent Decisions Weigh Toward Denial

Background

Before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.'s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 33). After the motion was fully briefed, Plaintiffs Ted Entertainment, Inc. and Golfholics, Inc. voluntarily dismissed their claims (ECF Nos. 53, 56), and the case remains active as to Plaintiffs Matt Fisher, Devin Youngblood, Nichole Chmura, and Chris Rice. The pending motion targets the plaintiffs' claim under Section 1201(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act concerning YouTube Technological Protection Measures. The order is dated October 30, 2026 and was issued by United States District Judge Jon S. Tigar.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed several statements of recent decision (ECF Nos. 47, 49, 50, 54, 55) identifying rulings that addressed allegations regarding some or all of the same YouTube Technological Protection Measures, and some of the same datasets, at issue in this case. Four courts determined that the plaintiffs in those actions had sufficiently stated a claim under Section 1201(a) of the DMCA — the same claim Plaintiffs assert here: Ted Ent., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 26-cv-02936-RS (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2026); Ted Ent., Inc. v. ByteDance Inc., No. 3:25-cv-10933-JSC (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2026); Ted Ent., Inc. v. Snap, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00754-AB-MBK (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2026); and Justice v. Suno, Inc., Civ. Action No. 25-11739-FDS (D. Mass. Aug. 20, 2026), which relied on UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Suno, Inc. (D. Mass. Aug. 18, 2026).

One of the cited courts also concluded that the plaintiffs had both Article III and statutory standing, as did the court in Ted Ent., Inc. v. ByteDance Inc. The court expressly noted that these decisions are not binding on it.

The Court’s Holding

The court held that, although not binding, the recent decisions weigh in favor of denying Meta's motion to dismiss. Rather than ruling on the motion on the existing record, the court concluded that supplemental briefing was necessary to ensure that Meta has an adequate opportunity to be heard regarding these authorities and that Plaintiffs have an adequate opportunity to respond to Meta's arguments.

The court ordered the parties to file a joint supplemental brief of no more than five pages for each side addressing the recent cases identified by Plaintiffs, including whether there are any material factual distinctions that warrant departing from the results in those cases. The parties must also include their views on whether the voluntary dismissal of two Plaintiffs has any impact on the pending motion to dismiss. The brief is due no later than November 19, 2026.

Finally, the court continued the November 17, 2026 case management conference to February 23, 2027, with a joint case management statement due by February 16, 2027, and concluded 'IT IS SO ORDERED.'

Key Takeaways

• Four recent decisions from other federal courts holding that plaintiffs sufficiently stated DMCA Section 1201(a) claims involving the same YouTube Technological Protection Measures and datasets weigh in favor of denying Meta's motion to dismiss, though they are not binding on this court.
• The court ordered a joint supplemental brief limited to five pages per side, directing the parties to address the recent cases and identify any material factual distinctions that would justify a different outcome.
• The parties must also brief whether the voluntary dismissal of Ted Entertainment, Inc. and Golfholics, Inc. affects the pending motion to dismiss.
• The supplemental brief must be filed no later than November 19, 2026.
• The November 17, 2026 case management conference was continued to February 23, 2027, with a joint case management statement due by February 16, 2027.

Why It Matters

The order reflects the court's view that DMCA Section 1201(a) circumvention claims premised on YouTube Technological Protection Measures remain viable at the pleading stage where persuasive authority from four courts points the same way. By requiring supplemental briefing rather than ruling immediately, the court preserved both sides' ability to address the new authorities and the procedural effect of the partial voluntary dismissal, a measured approach in a fast-moving area of copyright law involving technological protection measures.

For practitioners, the decision underscores that statements of recent decision can shift the posture of a fully briefed motion to dismiss and may lead to additional ordered briefing rather than an immediate ruling on the merits.