IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—N.D. Tex.: Quick end for Amazon in ‘jailbroken‘ Fire TV Stick case?, (Mar 2, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

A magistrate judge recommends that the online shopping merchant get a default victory—and walk away with over $18 million in damages.

Amazon successfully asserted Article III federal court jurisdiction over the distributor of illegally modified Fire TV Sticks because there was evidence that he caused harm to the online shopping powerhouse by engaging in, and contributing to, extensive infringement of Amazon’s content, a magistrate judge in the Northern District of Texas has found. The magistrate, whose findings will have to be approved by the federal judge overseeing the case, also recommended that Amazon win a default judgment in the case—along with over $18 million in punitive damages—because the alleged distributor failed to meaningfully participate in the case (Amazon Content Services, LLC v. Freemon, No. 3:24-cv-00733-L-BK (N.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2026)).

The lawsuit arises out of what Amazon contends to be “an extensive and commercially scaled network of illegal streaming services” operated by William Freemon and his company, Freemon Technology Industries LLC. The infringement allegedly began, according to the complaint, when between 2016 and 2019 Freemon sold illegally modified Fire TV Sticks (Fire Sticks)—“loaded” and “jailbroken” Fire Sticks, in his words—that enabled purchasers to access unauthorized content. In 2020, the complaint alleges, Freemon allegedly transitioned his business model and started up four online streaming services offering thousands of live television channels, more than 27,000 movies and 9,000 television series—all pirated, according to Amazon. The four services, TV Now, TV Nitro, Instant IPTV, and Cash App IPTV, were also allegedly accompanied by a reseller service, Live TV Resellers.

The parties then filed competing motions. Freemon moved to have the complaint dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on grounds that Amazon lacked constitutional standing to assert its claims. Amazon, meanwhile, moved for default judgment on the grounds that Freemon had failed to timely file a rules-compliant answer to the complaint.

Subject matter jurisdiction. The magistrate concluded that Amazon had shown standing. To demonstrate Article III standing, the magistrate noted, the party invoking federal jurisdiction must show “(i) that he suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (ii) that the injury was likely caused by the defendant; and (iii) that the injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief.” Freemon argued that Amazon had failed to “connect him to any infringing activity” and therefore had not shown any “concrete or particularized injury that [was] traceable to him.” The magistrate easily rejected the contention.

Amazon adequately connected Freemon to infringing activity, the magistrate found, because it submitted persuasive evidence that Freemon owned and operated all of the services in question. To begin with, the magistrate noted, Freemon admitted outright that he owned one of the services, Streaming TV Now. Moreover, the magistrate noted, all of the services’ tutorial pages included an instructional video titled “Amazon One-Click Purchase Failure Fix,” during which the video’s narrator logs into an Amazon account under the name “William Freemon.” Amazon also identified multiple instances, the court noted, in which the services “referred to each other as interchangeable versions of the same service.”

Amazon showed that Freemon also owned the various “back-end” services where infringing content was actually hosted, the magistrate found. Amazon’s evidence showed, the court found, that the five “front-end” (i.e., user-facing) websites provided subscribers access to the infringing content “through back-end web players (e.g., stncloud.ltd) and third party media players via sockets (e.g., stnlive.ltd.80) which in turn connected the third-party player back to Freemon’s back-end server.” Moreover, the magistrate noted, the evidence showed that three of the four online services directed subscribers to access application-based streams “through the same socket, stnlive.ltd,” at some point in time. “That three of the... services directed subscribers to the same back-end locations,” the magistrate noted, “suggests that the services were interconnected and that their common [owner]—Freemon—likewise controlled those back-entry points.”

Finally, even absent evidence linking Freemon to the back-end domains, the magistrate noted, Amazon would still have standing because it asserted both direct and secondary copyright claims. By controlling the front-end domains, the magistrate observed, Freemon therefore “facilitated user access to the infringing content,” thus supporting Amazon’s contributory copyright claim that he “knowingly and materially” contributed to the infringement. “Accordingly, even without a direct connection to the back-end domains,” the magistrate concluded, Amazon had “alleged injuries that are fairly traceable to Freemon’s conduct.” Amazon therefore had ample evidence to support its claim of standing.

Default judgment. But the magistrate judge was not done with Freemon—because in addition to rejecting his motion to dismiss, she also recommended that the court enter a default judgment against him. The problem for Freemon, the magistrate observed, was that he tried to answer the complaint pro se both on behalf of himself as well as his LLC. But because corporate entities cannot be represented without an attorney, the magistrate noted, the trial court had stricken the answer and ordered Freemon to file two different answers on behalf of both defendants. Freemon never did this, the magistrate noted—thus warranting default.

All of the factors traditionally considered in connection with default motions supported terminating the case in favor of Amazon, the magistrate found. Notwithstanding Freemon’s initial effort to participate in the litigation, the magistrate found, “his prolonged delay in filing an amended answer—either personally or through licensed counsel for FTI—ha[d] effectively ground this case to a halt.” Furthermore, the magistrate noted, failure to file responsive pleadings was willful, rather than the result of excusable neglect. Finally, the magistrate noted, rather than comply with the court’s order requiring his LLC to be represented by counsel, he instead filed “a flurry of motions in an apparent effort to evade that requirement.” In light of this “clear record of contumacious conduct,” the magistrate found, “no alternative sanction would suffice.” Default was therefore warranted, the magistrate concluded.

Statutory Damages. The magistrate also found that maximum statutory damages were warranted in this case. For one thing, the magistrate noted, Freemon knowingly sold unauthorized subscription access to “thousands of movies and TV shows that are typically available only through licensed platforms.” Moreover, the magistrate noted, Freemon operated the infringing services over four years and provided subscribers access to “tens of thousands of movies, TV shows, and live channels.” The magistrate noted, the figures alleged in Amazon’s complaint indicated that Freemon and his company likely generated “substantial profits” from their infringing activity. Thus, the magistrate concluded, Amazon should be awarded the maximum $150,000 per copyrighted work infringed—which in this case added up to $18,750,000 in statutory damages.

Injunction. Finally, the magistrate easily concluded that Amazon was entitled to a permanent injunction restraining Freemon from operating or selling the infringing services. For one thing, the magistrate noted, because a default judgment conclusively establishes liability, Amazon “will have prevailed on the merits.” Second, the magistrate observed, Amazon had no adequate remedy at law “because the imposition of monetary damages does not prevent future infringement” by Freemon and his company. Third, the magistrate found, there had been no showing that Freemon and his LLC would suffer any harm from a permanent injunction which prevented continued unlawful infringement. Finally, in light of need to uphold the integrity of copyright laws, the magistrate noted, a permanent injunction was “abundantly in the public interest.” Thus, the magistrate concluded, a permanent injunction should be awarded.

The Case is No. 3:24-cv-00733-L-BK.

Judge: Toliver, R.

Attorneys: Jeffrey S. Lowenstein (Bell Nunnally & Martin LLP) for Amazon Content Services LLC. William Freemon, pro se.

Companies: Amazon Content Services LLC

MainStory: TopStory Copyright TexasNews TechnologyInternet GCNNews