At long last, “porn troll” Prenda Law begins to pay up

Prenda Law sued thousands of Internet users for alleged illegal downloads of pornographic movies, insisting that they pay thousands of dollars to settle copyright allegations. Last year, documents indicate it made $1.9 million doing so.

In the past six months, however, the organization has come unglued, hammered with one judicial order after another. In five cases, Prenda has been ordered to pay hundreds of thousands in legal fees to defendants.

But while Prenda purchased a bond for more than $200,000 in one case, there hasn't been any confirmation that any defendants or defense attorneys have actually received a dime from Prenda—until today.

Nicholas Ranallo, a Santa Cruz-based attorney who has defended many Prenda infringement cases, has filed papers in the AF Holdings v. Navasca case indicating that Prenda has satisfied the order that it must pay $22,531 in legal fees. Ranallo also dropped his motion for sanctions against Prenda today.

Apart from the fact that Prenda paid something, no details are available about the Navasca payment. Ranallo didn't return phone calls or e-mails asking about the fee payment. Ars also contacted Morgan Pietz, another defender of Prenda-linked John Does, who declined to comment about whether fee payments have been received in Prenda lawsuits.

Paul Duffy, the lawyer of record for Prenda shell AF Holdings in this case, responded via e-mail but did not answer questions about the Navasca case or the fee payment. Instead, he wrote:

I hope you are doing well. I am devastated by the loss of Nelson Mandela and I hope you join with President Obama in remembering his legacy. He ranks with Mohandes Ghandi, Dr. King and President Kennedy in the struggle for human rights over the past 50 years. There are larger issues than the ability to steal porn... You seem like a nice guy. Thanks.

AF Holdings, a Prenda-linked shell, originally sued San Jose resident Joe Navasca back in May 2012. Ultimately, US District Judge Edward Chen found that the case "was frivolous and objectively unreasonable in that it never presented any evidence... to support its claim that it has standing." The signature on AF Holdings' copyright assignment "appears to have been a forgery," he concluded.