LIV Movies Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al — Court dismisses contributory and vicarious copyright claims for failure to allege third-party direct infringement

Background

LIV Movies Ltd., a motion picture production company, sued Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Doe defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 12, 2026. The company alleged that it is the author and copyright owner of the film Agents, whose copyright registration became effective on October 4, 2024, under Registration No. PA 2-493-059. According to the First Amended Complaint (FAC), the defendants sold and distributed infringing DVD copies of Agents to customers in the United States and India through amazon.com without authorization. The listing was active from at least October 12, 2025, until June 16, 2026; the DVDs were shipped from the defendants' warehouse; and Amazon represented itself as the seller on the website platform and in the physical packing slip.

LIV Movies sent the defendants infringement notices by email on October 12, 2025, and again in March 2026, and alleged it received no response to either communication. The FAC pleaded three claims: direct copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious copyright infringement. After Amazon moved to dismiss the original complaint, LIV Movies filed the FAC on August 26, 2026. On September 23, 2026, Amazon moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the FAC. Amazon did not seek dismissal of the first cause of action for direct infringement; the motion targeted only the second and third causes of action for contributory and vicarious infringement.

The Court’s Holding

The court granted Amazon's motion as to the secondary-liability claims. It explained that, as a threshold matter, both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement require a showing of direct infringement by third parties, citing Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007), and A&M Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2000). Amazon argued that the FAC identified no such third party and alleged no act by one, and the court agreed. The FAC's statement that the secondary-liability claims were pleaded in the alternative—to the extent Amazon contended that a third party rather than the defendants reproduced, supplied, or sold the accused DVDs—was not a factual allegation establishing third-party direct infringement. Anticipating the defendants' argument, the court held, did not supply the missing element.

The court concluded that LIV Movies did not plead sufficient facts supporting secondary liability based on infringement by a third party, and it dismissed the second and third causes of action. Because those deficiencies could be cured by amendment, the court granted leave to file a second amended complaint within thirty days of the order; if LIV Movies did not timely amend, Amazon's response to the FAC would be due within fourteen days after the amendment deadline. The court also denied as moot the uncorrected version of Amazon's motion at ECF No. 12. The direct copyright infringement claim was not dismissed and remains pending.

Key Takeaways

• Contributory and vicarious copyright infringement claims require factual allegations of direct infringement by a third party, not merely by the defendant.
• Pleading secondary liability in the alternative does not substitute for identifying a third party and alleging that party's infringing conduct.
• The court dismissed only the contributory and vicarious infringement claims; the direct copyright infringement claim against Amazon was not challenged and survives.
• LIV Movies was granted leave to file a second amended complaint within thirty days because the pleading deficiencies could be cured by amendment.
• Amazon's uncorrected motion at ECF No. 12 was denied as moot, while the corrected motion at ECF No. 13 was granted.

Why It Matters

The order draws a clear line between direct infringement allegations against Amazon and the separate factual foundation required for secondary liability. Allegations that Amazon itself sold, distributed, and shipped the accused DVDs could support the direct claim that Amazon did not challenge, but they did not establish the third-party direct infringement that contributory and vicarious liability require. The ruling applies settled Ninth Circuit law—Perfect 10 and Napster—to an online marketplace context, reinforcing that a plaintiff cannot plead secondary liability merely by anticipating the defendant's defense.

The decision also illustrates how a court can narrow a copyright case without ending it. LIV Movies retains its direct infringement claim and has thirty days to attempt to replead the dismissed secondary-liability claims. The partial dismissal with leave to amend leaves the core dispute over Amazon's own sales intact while requiring any secondary theory to identify an actual third-party infringer.