Amazon Sues Pirate Streaming Boxes, but Stocks ‘Piracy’ Tutorials?

Amazon and further associates of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment have declared ’war’ on pirate streaming devices and add-ons. While legal warnings are issued left and right, the Amazon store is ironically still catered with books that describe to newcomers how to install some of the same add-ons Amazon is tackling.

Previous summer saw the rise of a new anti-piracy scheme, which has Image result for streaming boxesalready garnered a few headlines.

A coalition of the big Hollywood studios, Amazon, Netflix and several other media houses teamed up, establishing the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE).

Their ultimate goal is defeating piracy, with pirate streaming bundles as the prime target.

In the months that ensued, various third-party Kodi add-on developers got threatening letters in the mail and topping that ACE filed lawsuits against three sellers of alleged pirate streaming boxes.

Their show of force hasn’t gone under the radar. It prompted some developers and vendors to back off or quit entirely. Simultaneously, fully-loaded boxes are now harder to obtain at ACE member Amazon, which has taken down tens of thousands of listings.

These boxes, which come with a built-in media player and also pirate add-ons, were not always that difficult to find though.

The truth is, Dragon Box, which Amazon and other members are suing was previously stocked on Amazon. This might be the reason why the company argued in its justification that it had “Amazon’s implied authorization to promote and sell the device.”

Apparently, these Dragon Boxes have now been removed from Amazon’s stock, but it’s still possible to find variously alleged piracy inducing items there today.

For starters, hundreds if not thousands of low-cost media players are there for sale. While they may be legal, Amazon member reviews show, sometimes with screenshots, ways they can be quickly set up to operate pirate add-ons.

Arguably, 24/7 moderation is required. After all, people may also purchase a PC on Amazon and suggest people to bookmark The Pirate Bay. Maybe we’re hairsplitting.

The widespread availability of “Kodi tutorials” is perhaps a bigger headache. While Kodi is legal, some of the books elaborately explain how to add “pirate” add-ons. The same devices Amazon is suing Tickbox, Set TV, and Dragon Box over.

A guide states referencing Set TV particularly “Do you want to install Area 51 IPTV or Set TV on your Kodi and Amazon Fire TV Stick or Fire TV?” Additionally saying “Do you want to install Supremacy, Dogs Bollock, Covenant, Genesis Reborn and Neptune Rising?”

Another book provides help on “How To Install Kodi And The Latest Downloads On Any Firestick” stating the add-on Exodus, among others. Exodus was famously featured as a “pirate” add-on by the MPA.

Other books are discussing how to install an extensive range of add-ons with a “pirate” reputation; Covenant included which is particularly stressed in the ACE lawsuits as a lousy actor.

As far as records go, none of these add-ons have been ruled illegal in court. But, it is evident that Amazon itself sees these as pirate devices.

It places Amazon in an awkward spot, as on the one hand, it is suing vendors who sell devices that come with the Covenant add-on, but on the other, it sells books that show people ways to set this up themselves.

Amazon has to sort itself out.

EU Advocate General: Right to Private Life Shouldn’t Obstruct Copyright Enforcement

In the EU, rights to private and family life are respected. However, EU Advocate General Szpunar in his new publication has made it clear that people cannot misuse their powers. They cannot share copyrighted content without permission from the copyright holders.

On May 8, 2010, German citizen Michael Strotzer was operating an Internet connection from where an audiobook was made obtainable on a peer-to-peer network.Image result for copyright eu

Bastei Lubbe AG, a German company, owned the copyrights to that content and had not granted Strotzer permission to share it online. Therefore, on October 28, 2010, Bastei Lübbe lettered to Strotzer with a demand for him to cease infringing their copyrights.

But, when the letter did not work, Bastei Lübbe took Strotzer to court in Germany to be compensated for the alleged damages caused.

Strotzer denied the copyright infringement claims by saying that his home network was secure and he wasn’t the one who did it. Additionally, he stated that his parents had access to his system.

But, neither did they have the audiobook on their computer nor use file-sharing networks. Furthermore, he said that their computer had been shut down at the time when the audiobook was shared online.

The court dismissed the case by saying that that the copyright infringement could not be directly attributed to Strotzer since his parents could also have shared the audiobook. Answering back, Bastei Lübbe filed an appeal with the Regional Court of First Instance in Munich.

The Court felt Michael Strotzer was responsible for the infringement as no third party involvement was evident from his statement.

The law of the case, however, made it complicated. Previously, the Federal Court ruled that the copyright holder should prove the infringement. It also said that the Internet connection owner is the likely committer if no-one was using at the time of the violation.

On that note, the connection owner should reveal the identity of those people who used it if he is not the one.

But, under Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which safeguards the right to respect for a citizen’s private and family life, it was argued that the owner of the connection is not required to give more information if a family member has had access to his network.

Keeping this in mind, the Munich court referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for guidance. Advocate General Szpunar published his opinion on June 6 in 21 different languages (except English) but thanks to lawyer Eleonora Rosati, there are findings.

But, if national law foresees such beliefs to ensure the protection of copyright, this shall be applied logically to guarantee effective copyright protection.

Meaning, if a country (in this case Germany) has national that lower the burdens of proof to help protect copyright law (something which is not mandatory under EU law), it does not necessarily mean that rightsholders cannot enforce their rights even if it conflicts with the right to respect for private family life.

When cases are taken to the CJEU, the judgment and future decisions of the Court often contain language which aims to balance what are usually seen as conflicting rights. In this case, it’s opined that the right to family life should not be used as an excuse to avoid liability in a matter where the rights of another party have been infringed.

The opinion of the Advocate General is not final, but the CJEU typically takes such advice.

Google Blacklists Millions Of Pirate URLs Rendering Them “Unlisted”

Google keeps a rapidly extending list of copyright-infringing URLs which they haven’t listed yet. This blacklist makes sure that these links are never put forward to the search engine. Appreciatively, a new update in the transparency report allows us to know how many non-registered links every takedown notice includes, which is astonishingly high in some cases.

Over the years, Google has had to deal with a continuous rise in takedown requests which target pirate sites in search results.Image result for pirate bay

The total number of ‘discarded’ URLs just touched 3.5 billion, and millions more are added daily.

Although that is not new, the thing that is new is Google sharing some further insight into the nature of these requests.

Fact is, millions, if not hundreds of millions, of the links copyright holders target, have never shown up in Google’s search index.

Earlier in the year Caleb Donaldson, Google copyright counsel, disclosed that the company had started to block non-listed links ‘prophylactically.’ Meaning, Google blocks URLs prior to them appearing in the search results, as some sort of piracy vaccine.

Donaldson stated “Google has critically expanded notice and takedown in another important way: We accept notices for URLs that are not even in our index in the first place. That way, we can collect information even about pages and domains we have not yet crawled.”

Additionally, he said “We process these URLs as we do the others. Once one of these not-in-index URLs is approved for takedown, we prophylactically block it from appearing in our Search results.”

Regrettably, Google gave no easy way to see how many links in a request were not listed, but that has now been rectified.

The previous week or so Google added a new signal to its DMCA transparency report showing how many of the submitted URLs in a notice are not listed yet. In some cases, it is most of them.

For example, Mexican branch on the anti-piracy group APDIF is one of the most active DMCA reporters and has requested Google to eliminate over a million URLs last week alone.

Given below are links where the majority of them appear to be non-indexed links.

Google now reporting non-listed takedown requests

These URLs are not removed well because they weren’t listed. Stated earlier by Google, they are kept on a separate blocklist instead, which denies them from being added hereafter.

Apart from APDIF, Rivendell is also an active sender with a high rate of non-listed links, often well over 50%.

It turns out to be a rather usual tactic. Big time players like Fox, Walt Disney, NBC Universal, BPI, and the RIAA, all send non-listed links with varying degrees.

While not all reporting agencies have such high percentages as APDIF, it is clear that millions of non-listed pirate URLs are added to the preventive blocklist every month.

Technically, the DMCA takedown procedure is meant for links and content which really exist on a server, but maybe Google wants to take it a step further themselves.

Sony Hands Out Precautionary World Cup Copyright Warnings

Sony Entertainment Network runs many TV channels, like Sony ESPN, which possess the rights to broadcast the 2018 FIFA World Cup. Sony has started sending out precautionary warnings to illegal streaming sites. The letter forewarns the unauthorized streaming of matches while threatening civil and criminal action.

In the past, an event like the fast-approaching FIFA World Cup wouldn’t have been notoriously affected by piracy. Image result for punctured football

Most people like to watch on the go, so services like BitTorrent that offer occurred content weren’t all that appealing.

Nowadays, however, there are hundreds of unlicensed platforms totally capable of transmitting live content, meaning that the World Cup is within the grasp of anyone with an average Internet connection.

Knowing this, anti-piracy companies are probably going to be working overtime during the World to make sure that live streams are taken down as soon as matches start. Whether they will be triumphant remains to be seen, but for the Sony Entertainment Network, the fight has already begun.

Sony in the current week has been sending out deterrent warnings to pirate sites via Indian anti-piracy firm Markscan. The company warns of grave consequences if sites don’t obey their warnings. Sony has claimed TV, radio, mobile, and broadband broadcasting rights to the World Cup in India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

Markscan letter reads “[Our] Client will be showing the matches live and content related to FIFA 2018 in various languages across the following channels comprising of Sony Entertainment Network which are designated to the official broadcasters of FIFA 2018.”

Markscan listed 10 channels that will be broadcasting content, with Sony ESPN included, a combined effort between the two companies in India.

It went on by saying “By way of the present caution notice issued to you, we caution you and your website, not to indulge in any broadcasting, rebroadcasting, making available for viewing and/or communicating to the public, the FIFA 2018 matches and any content associated thereof, without obtaining permission/authorization from our client.”

Markscan further said that the site in interrogation will be overseen for any acts of infringement and should any take place it shall be compelled to “initiate legal proceedings (civil and/or criminal) should you engage in violation of our Client’s rights despite the present notice.”

Owing to the sheer volume of legal services the World Cup will be made available on, it’s literally impossible to stop all unauthorized streams. In fact, due to the massive number of unlicensed sites around today, it’s probably going to be one of the most-pirated live sports tournaments of all time.

This means that despite the best preventive measures, any takedowns will prove a trivial amount.


YouTube Can Be Liable For Copyright Infringing Videos, Court Rules

In an opening order, a court in Vienna, Austria, has decreed that YouTube can be held responsible for users’ copyright infringements. The video service platform is not seen as an impartial intermediary and ought to do more to prevent infringing uploads. The judgment, which is not yet lawfully enacted, is a victory for local television channel Puls 4 but YouTube hints that, if it stands, the company will naturally appeal.

YouTube is known to be a hotbed for creators. Simultaneously, however, it’s also repeatedly used to upload copyrighted material without permission.Image result for youtube

While copyright holders can give takedown notices to eliminate infringing material, an initial ruling by the Commercial Court in Vienna has determined it will not suffice.

The ruling follows on the back of a complaint from local television channel Puls 4. Following a thorough review of YouTube’s functionalities, the Court finalized that YouTube has a responsibility to prevent third parties from uploading infringing content.

Defending itself, YouTube reasoned that it’s a neutral hosting provider under the terms of the E-Commerce Act.

But, the Commercial Court disagreed, saying that YouTube takes various motivated actions to organize and optimize how videos are shown. These actions make YouTube more than a neutral hosting server.

“Through the connections, sorting, filtering and linking, in particular by creating tables of contents according to predefined categories, determining the surfing behavior of users and creating a tailor-made surfing proposal, offering help etc, YouTube leaves on the role of a neutral intermediary and therefore cannot claim the host provider privilege,” the Court declared.

Consequently, YouTube will have to take measure to make sure that no copyright-infringing videos are uploaded hereafter. It sounds similar to the upload filters which are part of the EU’s planned copyright amendment.

As per Puls 4, the Court’s decision has “the potential to revolutionize the Internet.” Although limited to copyright infringement and YouTube, the company says that it could be widened to different areas and services as well.

Markus Breitenecker, Managing Director of Puls, said “The media, who call themselves social networks, will have to recognize that they must also take responsibility for the content through which they earn many millions. This is a real gamechanger”.

YouTube answered back by telling Austrian press that the judgment will be “examined in detail”.

A spokesman said, “We are keeping all options open, including an appeal.”
“YouTube takes copyright protection very seriously and provides rights owners with tools and resources to protect and exploit their content.”

The present ruling is yet to be legally binding, meaning there is more to come from this case.

Michael Jackson Estate Spins The ‘Fair Use’ Tables on Disney

The Michael Jackson Estate is suing ABC and Walt Disney Company for using several of its copyrighted works without permission. Disney argued that no harm was done as airing “The Last Days of Michael Jackson” documentary is “fair use.” The Estate disagrees saying Disney’s argument would leave even Napster’s founders bewildered.

On 30th May, the Michael Jackson Estate filed a copyright infringement complaint against The Walt Disney Company and ABC, who broadcasted the primetime special “The Last Days of Michael Jackson” last week.Image result for michael jackson

In the complaint, the Estate said Disney and ABC’s broadcast used no less than thirty different copyrighted works owned by the Estate, without authorization. Michael Jackson’s heirs had, in fact, urged the media behemoths to not its intellectual property without a license.

The Estate has termed this act by Disney a double standard.

The complaint emphasized that Disney is known for its strict copyright enforcement actions but perhaps blatantly disregards copyright law’s “fair use”.

For example, a few years back Disney sent DMCA takedown notices to Twitter, Facebook, and other websites and web hosts, when consumers posted pictures of new Star Wars toys that were legally purchased.

“Apparently, Disney claimed that simple amateur photographs of Star Wars characters in toy form infringed Disney’s copyrights in the characters and were not a fair use,” the Estate writes.

But, when the Estate told the same, Disney used “fair use” as a defense. Disney argued that it could legally use Jackson’s copyrighted material as the broadcast was labeled as a documentary.

According to Jackson’s heirs, this is “absurd” and “dead wrong” as even the founders of Napster would recognize this act as blatant infringement.

Turning the screws on Disney, the Estate gives several examples of cases where the media juggernaut is likely to oppose to its own fair use arguments.

The Estate said that if Disney’s stand on the fair use of the Estate’s copyrights were accepted then by that logic anybody could create a two-hour documentary about the Star Wars franchise without permission.

“We are confident that Disney would not react kindly to attempts by others to create such projects without getting permission from Disney and paying Disney for the use of its property,” the Estate adds.

Jackson’s heirs believe that Disney and ABC have blatantly infringed. They, therefore, request an injunction preventing any additional infringement as well as damages for the losses they’ve endured.


Kodi Add-on Developer Forfeits Piracy Defense for Lack of Funds

Shani, the brains behind the popular Kodi add-on ZemTV, has told his lawyer to stop defending him. The reason is the London-based developer’s lack of funds to fight the legal battle versus Dish Networks in a US court. The likely result is that the broadcast provider will win a default judgment.

The previous year, American satellite and broadcast provider Dish Network targeted two notable players in the third-party Kodi add-on ecosystem. Image result for zemtv

In a complaint filed in a federal court in Texas, the broadcast provider accused both ZemTV and TVAddons of copyright infringement, with both facing up to $150,000 for each offense.

TVAddons operator Adam Lackman responded to the allegations last week, but ZemTV’s developer ‘Shani’ declined.

Shani, short for Shahjahan Durrani never denied that he was the brains behind the Kodi-addons ZemTV, LiveStreamsPro, and F4MProxy. He initially intended to put up a defense, but financial constraints meant it was an uphill task.

Shani launched a fundraiser last autumn to crowdsource the legal battle. He was able to raise close to £1,000, but the legal costs already exceeded even before the case got fully underway.

It left him in a dilemma, either find the funds or give up the case.

Shani told his lawyer Erin Russel to stop all activity on the case and to take no further steps on his behalf.

The lawyer informed the court of this decision backend of last week and withdrew from the case.

This implies that the lawsuit is heading towards a default judgment and in fact, Dish has already moved for an entry of default.

Dish’s motion reads “To date, Durrani has not filed an answer or other responsive pleading or requested additional time to do so.” “Accordingly, the Clerk should enter a default against Durrani.”

Shani still hopes that Dish will drop all charges. The developer said he never operated copyright-infringing streams, nor has he ever made money from his add-ons.

ZemTV, similar to many other add-ons just offered the interface making it possible to watch third-party streams on the Kodi platform. Infringement or not, the developer notes that notwithstanding the lawsuit, these third-party streams are still online.

“The irony of all this mess is that those servers and apps are still functional and working while I am dealing with this illogical case,” Shani concludes.

Dish will likely demand judgment of thousands of dollars in damages should the Texas District Court enter the default. However, damage recoup is unlikely because Shani lives in the UK and at the same time has no assets in the US.

Movie Studios Sue Founder & Distributors of Worldwide Pirate App Showbox

A sizable coalition of independent movie studios, including the makers of Dallas Buyers Club, filed a lawsuit against the alleged ‘founder’ and several distributors of the popular movie streaming application Showbox. In their complaint, they term the Android application as a pirate tool that’s used to mislead the public.

For years now companies have focused their anti-piracy efforts on pirate sites, including torrent and streaming portals. Image result for showbox

In recent times, these efforts have expanded to streaming boxes, with the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) targeting several sellers of such devices.

Last week, the coalition targeted well known Android-based app Showbox.

Showbox does not grab headlines, but the tool is used by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. It enables users to watch movies and TV shows via torrents and direct sources, all through a Netflix-style interface.

They include the alleged founder and developer ‘Andrew Crow,’ founder ‘Mark Willow,’ and the people behind and

Additionally, the complaint also targets the persons who made the application available on, a repository of APK files.

The complaint reads “Plaintiffs bring this action to stop the massive piracy of their motion pictures brought on by the software application Show Box app.”

“The Defendants misleadingly promote the Show Box app as a legitimate means for viewing content to the public, who eagerly install the Show Box app to watch copyright-protected content, thereby leading to profit for the Defendants.”

This lawsuit is similar to the phone store employee case where it relies on input from an alleged user of the application. In the current situation that’s Hawaiian resident James Sosa.

Sosa testifies “I visited the website and followed the instructions on the website to download the Show Box app to my Dell tablet.”

“The language on the site led me to believe that I could use the Show Box app to watch free movies legally.”

From the Complaint

The movie studios stated that Showbox is a pirate tool, plain and simple.

The studios wrote, “Defendants promote the use of the Show Box app user for overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, infringing purposes, and that is how the users use the Show Box app.”

All defendants stand accused of contributory copyright infringement. The studios are requesting the court for substantial or legal damages to reimburse their losses, as well as temporary, preliminary and permanent ruling to stop the allegedly infringing activities.

Additionally, the studios also request an order denying internet search engines, hosting companies, domain-name registrars, and domain name registries to give access to the allegedly infringing domain names and websites.

While previously the movie studios were engaged in so-called copyright trolling lawsuits, the Showbox related cases show that they are now going after the people who promote, develop, and distribute a popular streaming app.

Hollywood Teams Up to Widen Swedish Pirate Bay Blockade

Several major Hollywood studios including Disney, Universal Studios, and Warner Bros, have teamed up with Swedish movie business to widen the local Pirate Bay blockade. Together they want Telia, Sweden’s largest ISP, to block The Pirate Bay, Dreamfilm, Nyafilmer, and Fmovies, as soon as possible.

The previous year, Swedish Patent and Market Court of Appeal ordered local Internet provider Bredbandsbolaget to block The Pirate Bay and streaming site Swefilmer.

The rogue torrent site blocked on its home turf was seen as a victory, but it only covered a subsection of Swedish Internet subscribers.

This week, a coalition of major film companies hopes to widen the scope. The Swedish Film Industry, Nordisk Film, Disney Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, Columbia Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Studios, Warner Bros. and many other companies are dragging Internet provider Telia to court.

The lawsuit filed on Monday and documented by Ny Teknik requested Sweden’s largest Internet provider to block access to a selection of pirate sites. They include The Pirate Bay, Dreamfilm, Nyafilmer, and Fmovies, as well as many related proxies and mirror sites.

“Telia currently provides its subscribers with unrestricted access to these illegal services, thereby enabling these illegal services to utilize Telia’s Internet service to infringe the rights of rights-holders and others,” the complaint reads.

The movie companies reckon that Telia has a market share of roughly 36% of all Swedish Internet subscribers. Additionally, they’ve said the ISP has the tools to block these infringing sites, which would be both proportional and practical, in line with EU regulation.

This isn’t the first blocking lawsuit in Sweden, but the movie companies are using a different approach this time.

It is similar to Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN’s approach last year in the Netherlands where the complaint asks for a preliminary ruling, so the blockades can be implemented before the case is fully litigated.

The movie companies request the blocking of the pirate services as a whole and not just the domains that are in use now.

They argue that without this option “the rights holders will have to burden the legal system with repeated blocking requests if and when the operators behind the illegal services change domain names.”

Telia has not responded yet at the time of writing. Last year when copyright holders asked Telia to block The Pirate Bay, it had replied that it would only do so after a court order.


FCC Seeks Amazon & Ebay Help to Eliminate Pirate Media Box Sales

FCC Commissioner Michael O’Reilly has requested the heads of Amazon and eBay to eliminate sales of pirate media boxes which illegally display the FCC compliance logo. Lettered to Devin Wenig and Jeff Bezos, O’Reilly seeks the complete removal of such devices, noting that their fraudulent labeling is worsened by the effect they have on the entertainment industries.

Over the years, anyone looking for piracy-configured set-top box could hop onto Amazon or eBay. Search terms like “Kodi” or “fully-loaded” were ushered with page after page of Android-type boxes, each ready for illegal plug-and-play entertainment consumption following delivery.Image result for amazon

Even though the problem remains on both platforms, one is less likely to find an infringing device then say 12 to 24 months ago. Amazon & eBay have tightened the screws on sellers of such devices with mounting pressure from entertainment industry groups. Now, they’ve both received requests to stem sales from an entirely different group.

FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly’s letter to eBay CEO Devin Wenig and Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos first spotted by Ars calls on these platforms to take action against piracy-configured boxes that fail to comply with FCC equipment authorization requirements or wrongly display FCC logos, contrary to United States law.

O’Rielly’s letter reads “Disturbingly, some rogue set-top box manufacturers and distributors are exploiting the FCC’s trusted logo by fraudulently placing it on devices that have not been approved via the Commission’s equipment authorization process.”

“Specifically, nine set-top box distributors were referred to the FCC in October for enabling the unlawful streaming of copyrighted material, seven of which displayed the FCC logo, although there was no record of such compliance.”

O’Reilly admits copyright infringement aspects fall outside the jurisdiction of the FCC, but said it is still troubling knowing many of these devices are used to stream infringing content, “exacerbating the theft of billions of dollars in American innovation and creativity.”

As stated above, both Amazon and eBay have taken steps to minimize sales of pirate boxes on their respective platforms on copyright infringement grounds, and O’Reilly duly noted that. But, he says devices continue to be sold to members of the public who may believe they are legal since they’re available for sale from legitimate companies.

“For these reasons, I am seeking your further cooperation in assisting the FCC in taking steps to eliminate the non-FCC compliant devices or devices that fraudulently bear the FCC logo,” the Commissioner writes (pdf).

“Moreover, if your company is made aware by the Commission, with supporting evidence, that a particular device is using a fraudulent FCC label or has not been appropriately certified and labeled with a valid FCC logo, I respectfully request that you commit to swiftly removing these products from your sites.”

If the request is implemented, then O’Reilly would like both platforms to hand over information of offending manufacturers, distributors, and suppliers.

Amazon quickly responded to the FCC. In a letter published by Ars, Amazon’s Public Policy Vice President Brian Huseman assured O’Reilly that the company is dedicated to tackling rogue devices on copyright-infringement grounds and also when there is fraudulent use of the FCC’s logos.

Huseman said dealing with the problem is a top priority by pointing out that Amazon is a vital member of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE) – a group that has been taking legal action against sellers of infringing streaming devices (ISDs) and those who assemble infringing add-ons for Kodi-type systems.

Huseman wrote, “Our goal is to prevent the sale of ISDs anywhere, as we seek to protect our customers from the risks posed by these devices, in addition to our interest in protecting Amazon Studios content.”

In 2017, Amazon became the first online marketplace to ban the sale of streaming media players that promote or facilitate piracy. To thwart the sale of these devices, they proactively scan product listings for signs of potentially infringing products, and also invest heavily in sophisticated, automated real-time tools to review a variety of data sources and signals to identify duplicate goods.

“These automated tools are supplemented by human reviewers that conduct manual investigations. When we suspect infringement, we take immediate action to remove suspected listings, and we also take enforcement action against sellers’ entire accounts when appropriate.”

Huseman revealed that since the implementation of a proactive policy against such devices, “tens of thousands” of listings have been blocked from Amazon. Also, civil actions like making criminal referrals to law enforcement as part of ACE.

Huseman concludes “As noted in your letter, we would also appreciate the opportunity to collaborate further with the FCC to remove non-compliant devices that improperly use the FCC logo or falsely claim FCC certification. If any FCC non-compliant devices are identified, we seek to work with you to ensure they are not offered for sale.”