## Facts

- Recording companies sued Jammie Thomas-Rasset for copyright infringement based on alleged peer-to-peer file sharing on the Kazaa network under the username “tereastarr.”
- Plaintiffs’ investigation indicated many tracks were available through the account, but the case proceeded on 24 identified sound recordings.
- Plaintiffs alleged Thomas-Rasset unlawfully downloaded and distributed the 24 recordings and elected statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).
- Thomas-Rasset denied infringement and disputed that she controlled the “tereastarr” account, suggesting others may have used or accessed her computer.
- A first jury trial resulted in a willful-infringement verdict and $222,000 in statutory damages; the court ordered a new trial after concluding the “making available” instruction misstated the distribution right.
- A second jury found willful infringement of all 24 recordings and awarded $80,000 per work, totaling $1,920,000.
- The 2010 decision resolved post-trial motions seeking a new trial or remittitur on constitutional excessiveness grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether a $1,920,000 statutory-damages award ($80,000 per work) for willful infringement of 24 sound recordings by an individual noncommercial defendant violated due process as wholly disproportionate and obviously unreasonable.
2. Whether, and to what amount, the court could reduce the jury’s statutory-damages award through a constitutionally based remittitur, conditioned on the defendant’s acceptance.

## Decision

- The court held the $1,920,000 statutory-damages award was unconstitutionally excessive under the Due Process Clause.
- The court granted remittitur reducing damages to $2,250 per work ($54,000 total).
- The court conditioned denial of a new trial on damages on Thomas-Rasset’s acceptance of the remitted amount; if she rejected it, a new trial limited to damages would proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory damages, though authorized within a legislatively set range, remain subject to due process limits in their application to particular facts.
- An award violates due process if it is so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportionate to the offense and obviously unreasonable.
- In reviewing excessiveness, a court may consider the relationship between the award and actual or potential harm, the defendant’s culpability (including willfulness), and the permissible deterrent and punitive purposes of statutory damages.
- Remittitur may be used to cure constitutional excessiveness, but must be offered conditionally to preserve the right to a jury determination of damages (accept the reduced amount or proceed to a new trial on damages).

## Conclusion

The court found a $1.92 million statutory-damages verdict for willful peer-to-peer sharing of 24 songs by an individual noncommercial defendant violated due process, and it offered a conditional remittitur to $54,000 or, failing acceptance, a new trial on damages.


Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, 680 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (D. Minn. 2010)