IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D.N.Y.: HBO, Warner Bros. recover reduced attorney fees in failed reality-show copyright lawsuit, (Jul 22, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

A reality-show creator pursued an objectively unreasonable copyright infringement claim based largely on unprotectable ideas, warranting an award of attorney fees.

A federal district court in New York awarded attorney fees and limited costs to Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (WBD), Home Box Office Inc. (HBO), and television production company Grand Street Media Holdings Inc. after they successfully defeated a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by the creator of a proposed reality television series. The court concluded that the copyright claims were objectively unreasonable because they were based primarily on unprotectable concepts and generic reality-show elements, and because the plaintiff persisted with substantially the same allegations after the court had already identified the complaint's legal deficiencies. The court also denied Grand Street's request for Rule 11 sanctions, holding that the sanctions motion failed to comply with Rule 11's mandatory procedural requirements (Piuggi v. Good For You Productions LLC, No. 1:23-cv-03665-VM (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 20, 2026)).

Dispute. The matter arose after Jack Piuggi, who claimed to have developed a documentary-style reality television concept titled Instafamous, sued Warner Bros. Discovery, HBO, and Grand Street Media Holdings, a television production company. Piuggi alleged that after pitching Instafamous to Grand Street, HBO released the documentary Fake Famous and later aired the reality dating series FBoy Island, both of which allegedly copied protected elements of his concept. In addition to copyright infringement, Piuggi asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment arising out of his alleged pitch to Grand Street.

Piuggi filed suit in May 2023. In July 2024, the district court dismissed the original complaint while granting leave to amend, concluding that Piuggi had failed to plausibly allege actual copying or substantial similarity between Instafamous and the accused television programs. Piuggi subsequently filed an amended complaint asserting copyright infringement and breach of contract, but in February 2025 the court dismissed the amended pleading as well, finding that it merely repeated the same fundamental defects identified in the earlier dismissal order. Following their success on the merits, WBD, HBO, and Grand Street sought attorney fees under Section 505 of the Copyright Act, while Grand Street separately sought Rule 11 sanctions.

Objective unreasonableness. Addressing the fee applications, the court explained that attorney fees under Section 505 are discretionary but should advance the Copyright Act's purposes by encouraging meritorious litigation while discouraging objectively unreasonable copyright claims. Applying the Supreme Court's guidance in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994), and Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 579 U.S. 197 (2016), the court observed that objective unreasonableness is ordinarily entitled to substantial weight in the analysis.

The court found Piuggi's infringement claims objectively unreasonable because they relied almost entirely on broad ideas, themes, and concepts that copyright law does not protect. The earlier dismissal order had already explained that the alleged similarities consisted of generic reality television elements rather than protectable expression. Nevertheless, the amended complaint again failed to identify substantial similarities in protected expression or plead facts plausibly supporting actual copying.

The court further noted that Piuggi continued to advance essentially the same legal theories despite receiving detailed guidance in the earlier dismissal decision. Citing Mallery v. NBC Universal, Inc., No. 07-CV-2250, 2008 WL 719218 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2008), among other authorities, the court concluded that the litigation resembled prior copyright cases in which fee awards were appropriate because the asserted similarities involved only generalized concepts and themes rather than protected creative expression.

The court also determined that a fee award would further the Copyright Act's goals of compensation and deterrence. Requiring prevailing copyright defendants to absorb the substantial costs of defending objectively unreasonable lawsuits, the court explained, would undermine the statute's purpose of encouraging legitimate creative activity while discouraging meritless infringement claims.

Reasonableness of requested fees. Having determined that fees were warranted, the court carefully reviewed the defendants' billing records and reduced certain requested amounts. Because Grand Street had defended both copyright and contract claims, the court excluded time attributable solely to the non-copyright claims and reduced billing entries that inadequately distinguished between compensable and non-compensable work. The court also reduced Grand Street's request for fees incurred in preparing the fee application, finding that the requested amount was excessive given the relatively straightforward nature of the motion and its substantial reliance on WBD's briefing.

The court likewise reviewed WBD's fee application and declined to award certain requested costs. Specifically, it refused to reimburse electronic legal research expenses, explaining that such expenses are generally reflected in counsel's hourly billing rates rather than recoverable as separate taxable costs. Accordingly, the court awarded Grand Street $30,641.16 in attorney fees. WBD and HBO were awarded $75,069.10 in attorney fees, together with $505.10 in costs.

Rule 11 sanctions. Grand Street also sought sanctions against Piuggi and his counsel under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court denied that request without addressing its substantive merits because the motion did not comply with Rule 11's mandatory procedural requirements.

Rule 11 requires a sanctions motion to be filed separately from any other motion. Grand Street instead combined its request for sanctions with its motion seeking attorney fees and costs. Because the separate-motion requirement is mandatory, the court held that the procedural defect alone required denial of the sanctions request.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-03665-VM.

Judge: Marrero, V.

Attorneys: Thomas Scapoli (Ingerman Smith, LLP) for Good For You Productions LLC. Cynthia S. Arato (Shapiro Arato Bach LLP) for Grand Street Media Inc.

Companies: Good For You Productions LLC; Grand Street Media Inc.

Cases: Copyright NewYorkNews