I don't know anything about the unnamed firm mentioned up the thread other than what the OP said but it doesn't sound like they are actually following the law:

I don't know anything about the unnamed firm mentioned up the thread other than what the OP said but it doesn't sound like they are actually following the law: I doubt that simply "finding" a website with a video that lacks captions is enough for a viable suit. From Googling, it appears that suits without actual damages are getting thrown out[0], so I'd guess the attorneys running that show are doing something unlawful but not illegal by filing these suits, or maybe something not even unlawful by simply making legal demands without filing. Probably one of the biggest causes for all of this pain is that so many "white collar" violations of public trust are either a) not actually illegal or b) not handled by any law enforcement. The Prenda Law debacle comes to mind though -- these guys spent years terrorizing people with copyright law before anything really came of it but, incredibly, they actually ended up convicted on fairly serious charges. It's super wild to read about, I wonder if they had dialed it back a tiny bit they would have stayed under the radar completely. [0] This doesn't help the defendants in question with their own attorney's fees but does send a message about viability of these garbage suits to the plaintiffs and every other firm looking into it.