Automattic Inc. v. Steiner
82 F. Supp. 3d 1011
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Plaintiff Automattic (California WordPress.com operator) and blogger Oliver Hotham (London resident) sued Nick Steiner (UK resident, Straight Forward Project press officer) under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) for knowingly materially misrepresenting copyright infringement in DMCA takedown notices that led Automattic to disable Hotham’s WordPress post.
- Plaintiffs served Steiner in the UK via the Hague Convention Central Authority; Steiner did not appear, the Clerk entered default, and Plaintiffs moved for default judgment.
- Magistrate Judge Spero recommended granting default judgment after finding service adequate, personal jurisdiction proper, the § 512(f) claim sufficiently pleaded, and damages and fees supported with supplemental declarations.
- The court adopted the report and recommendation and awarded $960 to Hotham (lost time/work), $1,860 to Automattic (employee time), and $22,264 in attorneys’ fees, totaling $25,084.
- The court rejected speculative damages claims for reputational harm, emotional distress, and chilled speech, and denied recovery for speculative PR-retainer allocations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of service under Hague Convention / Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1) | Service via U.S. process server using USM‑94 routed through UK Central Authority that posted documents to defendant’s address was proper | (No appearance; challenged implicitly by absence and difficulty of service) | Service was adequate: Central Authority certificate created prima facie proof of valid service. |
| Personal jurisdiction (consent & specific jurisdiction) | Steiner consented to California jurisdiction by using WordPress (accepting Terms of Service forum clause) and expressly aimed tortious conduct at Automattic in California via DMCA notices | (No appearance; extraterritoriality/personal jurisdiction implicit defense possible) | Jurisdiction proper: consent via Terms of Service and specific jurisdiction satisfied under Calder effects test (intentional act, express aiming, harm in forum). |
| Merits of § 512(f) claim (knowing, material misrepresentation causing reliance/injury) | Notices knowingly misrepresented copyright in press release material, Automattic relied and disabled content, causing injury | (No answer; potential extraterritoriality challenge that misrepresentation originated abroad) | Claim has merit: Court treats focus as where reliance/removal and injury occurred (California), so statute applies and complaint states a § 512(f) claim. |
| Damages and attorneys’ fees under § 512(f) | Seek recovery for time/resources, reputational harm, emotional distress, chilled speech, and attorneys’ fees; submitted supplemental declarations and billing records | (No response) | Awarded: recoverable reasonable lost time for Hotham ($960) and Automattic employees ($1,860); attorneys’ fees awarded in full ($22,264); reputational, emotional, chilled‑speech, and speculative PR retainer damages denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rule 4(f)(1) incorporates Hague Convention methods; using Central Authority is required for service under that provision)
- Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) (express‑aiming test for purposeful direction where communications target a forum‑resident plaintiff)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (effects test for specific jurisdiction: intentional act, expressly aimed at forum, causing forum‑known harm)
- Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) (California’s long‑arm statute coextensive with federal due process; three‑part specific jurisdiction test)
- S.E.C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2007) (consent to jurisdiction via affirmative acts, e.g., accepting forum‑selection clauses or asserting rights)
- Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (U.S. 2010) (presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. statutes; focus on where statute’s protective object occurs)
- Online Policy Grp. v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (construction of § 512(f) elements and knowledge/materiality analysis)
- Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., No official reporter citation included in this opinion (N.D. Cal. 2013) (construing § 512(f) damages broadly but limiting chilled‑speech awards)