## Facts

- Recording companies sued Joel Tenenbaum under the Copyright Act for unauthorized downloading and distribution of copyrighted sound recordings using peer-to-peer networks from about 1999 to at least 2007.
- The case proceeded on 30 copyrighted songs, though evidence indicated far more songs were shared.
- Tenenbaum continued file sharing despite repeated warnings and admitted at trial to distributing thousands of songs.
- During discovery, Tenenbaum gave false explanations for the infringing activity and acknowledged his conduct only later.
- The jury found willful infringement and awarded $22,500 per work for 30 works, totaling $675,000, within the statutory range for willful infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).
- After an earlier reduction on due-process grounds was vacated on appeal, the case returned to the district court to consider remittitur under non-constitutional standards.

## Issues

1. Whether the $675,000 statutory-damages award for willful infringement of 30 sound recordings was so excessive under remittitur/excessiveness standards that it had to be reduced.
2. Whether the court could resolve the post-verdict challenge on non-constitutional grounds without deciding any due-process question.

## Decision

- The court denied remittitur and declined to reduce the $675,000 jury award.
- The court held the verdict was not “grossly excessive,” did not “shock the conscience,” and was not “monstrous” or “plainly unjust” under traditional remittitur standards.
- The court gave substantial deference to the jury’s selection because the per-work amount was well within Congress’s statutory range for willful infringement.
- The court relied on evidence of extended, knowing infringement, ignored warnings, broad dissemination, and deceptive litigation conduct as supporting a significant deterrent award.
- The court did not reach any constitutional due-process issue because the award was sustainable on remittitur grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) serve compensatory and deterrent purposes, and juries have wide discretion within the congressionally prescribed range, especially upon a finding of willfulness.
- Remittitur is appropriate only when a civil verdict is so excessive that it shocks the conscience or reflects passion or prejudice rather than a rational assessment of permissible factors.
- Willfulness, prolonged infringement, continued misconduct after warnings, and litigation deception are aggravating facts that can justify higher statutory damages.
- Under constitutional-avoidance principles, courts should resolve challenges through non-constitutional doctrines (such as remittitur) before addressing due-process limits on statutory damages.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a $675,000 statutory-damages verdict for willful peer-to-peer music infringement, finding the award rationally supported by the evidence and within the statutory range, and therefore not subject to remittitur.


Sony BMG Music Ent. v. Tenenbaum, No. 07-11446-NG, 2012 WL 3639053 (D. Mass. Aug. 23, 2012)