What Does the Report Card from the Copyright Claims Board Tell Us?

On February 13, 2026, The Copyright Office (“CO”) released a report on the first three years of experience with the Copyright Claims Board (“CCB”) under the CASE Act.

The CCB is a voluntary small claims tribunal for parties seeking expedited resolution of copyright disputes. The CCB was not created pursuant to Article III of the Constitution and so is not subject to Article III safeguards; for this reason, participation cannot be mandated. So, participation is voluntary by necessity. Nevertheless, there are good reasons for both claimants and respondents to agree to submit to its jurisdiction, among them:

• It’s less expensive than the district court alternative
• It’s faster
• Discovery is simplified
• The proceedings are virtual
• The damage caps are lower than available remedies in district courts
• It’s designed to support pro se representation

Notwithstanding these benefits, it was unclear how the CCB would be received and used.

Now, with three years of experience behind it, the initial results are in. In its first three years:

• The CCB received over 1,700 claims; it is expecting to receive over 600 claims in its fourth year
• Two thirds of the claimants were self-represented and an additional 17% were represented by in-house counsel or a business representative
• Respondents were slightly less likely to appear pro se
• Claims have concerned the full range of copyrightable works, with pictorial/graphic/sculptural works constituting 36% of claims, motion pictures/audiovisual works 24%, literary works 13%, sound recordings 11%, musical works 5%, dramatic works 2% and software 2%
• Claimants have hailed from all 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico and four dozen countries
• The opt out rate among respondents has been moderate – roughly one-third
• Both large corporations and individuals have been among those respondents agreeing to participate in CCB proceedings
• Notwithstanding the simplified process and availability of CCB support materials, only 43% of initial claims were found to be compliant; the rest were ultimately dismissed – the most obvious examples of noncompliance include claims outside the CCB’s subject matter, claims against foreign respondents or federal or state entities, and claims with incomplete or no registration applications
• Of those claims determined to be compliant, a further 35% were dismissed for failure to file a valid proof of service
• The average length of proceeding is 518 days
• Damages were awarded in nearly 72% of final determinations, with the average award at about $3,600; the highest was $11,000 (providing one good reason respondents should not opt out), and the lowest $750 (the statutory minimum for non-willful infringement)
• Bottom line, the CCB has issued 43 final determinations as of the end of 2025, relatively evenly split in favor of claimants and respondents; but another 136 were resolved due to a known party settlement, with another 100 voluntary dismissals (and it’s been suggested that some parties have negotiated agreements after cease-and-desist letters indicating an intent to file a CCB claim)

Based on its review, the CO is recommending some changes to the CASE Act:

• Give the CCB discretion to allow a claimant only one opportunity to amend a non-compliant claim in order to further speed up the process
• Permit additional service methods (currently, service must comply with state law for serving a summons in an action brought in the state where service is made)
• Allow a single Claims Officer (“CO”) to preside over standard proceedings, to conserve resources
• Permit respondents to affirmatively waive the remainder of the opt-out period to expedite proceedings
• Permit the CCB to offer mediation
• Allow district courts to refer a case to the CCB for settlement discussions, mediation, or preparation of a report and recommendation
• Ease the process for CCB determination to be enforced in federal court
• Give the COdiscretion to determine whether actual or statutory damages are more appropriate
• Allow prevailing parties to recover costs, and allow pro se parties, in the event of bad faith, conduct to recover either a multiple of costs or a flat fee

All-in-all, a positive report card that should give both claimants and respondents some comfort that, where smaller claims are at issue, submission to the CCB process is a viable alternative to burdensome and lengthy entanglement in district court, or abandoning an otherwise merit worthy claim altogether.

If you’re interested in a deeper dive, you can read the full report here: CASE Act Report.