Court orders for blocking of streaming services

Anne Mitchell amitchell at
Sun May 8 16:16:29 UTC 2022

A point of order:

> The plaintiff’s won a default judgement, because the defendants didn’t show up in court.  But they could not have shown up in court, because they were only listed as “John Does” in the lawsuit. 

It's actually a lawsuit against "Does 1-10 DBA", so the defendants actually are on notice, they are the people behind  This is a not-all-that-unusual method when a defendant goes out of their way to hide their individual identities.  Basically this means everyone and anyone at unless and until the actual individuals responsible show up.

In order for a lawsuit to move forward _at all_, the plaintiff has to submit a certified "proof of service", which includes a sworn statement by the process server, proving that the defendant was actually served. In this case I'm guessing (and again, it's only a guess, but an educated guess) that the process server walked into the offices at, at Cihannüma Mahallesi, Saray Cad, 34353 İstanbul-Turkey, and handed the summons to someone.

A much more likely explanation for why they defaulted is that because the people behind are not in the U.S. (i.e. in a country other than that in which the lawsuit was filed) they figured that they didn't have to bother responding.


Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
CEO ISIPP SuretyMail
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Counsel Emeritus: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) (now the anti-spam arm of TrendMicro)

More information about the NANOG mailing list