Prohibits the making of a bad-faith claim or assertion of copyright infringement. (BDR 52-699)
SB332 would make it a deceptive trade practice in Nevada for a person to make a bad-faith claim or assertion of copyright infringement. The bill targets abusive or unsupported copyright demand letters and similar enforcement efforts, and it gives courts a list of factors to consider when deciding whether a claim was made in bad faith. Those factors include whether the demand identified the copyright registration and owner, included specific factual allegations, reflected a real comparison between the works, allowed a reasonable time to respond, and was based on a reasonable estimate of value rather than litigation pressure.
The bill also creates a private right of action for a person harmed by a bad-faith copyright claim. An aggrieved person could seek equitable relief, actual damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and exemplary damages equal to $30,000 or three times actual damages plus fees and costs, whichever is greater. A prevailing defendant could also recover fees and costs if the lawsuit was not well-grounded or was brought for an improper purpose. The bill expressly applies to claims under federal copyright provisions related to infringement and takedown notices, but excludes certain claims, including those under the visual artists’ rights provision and claims brought by 501(c)(3) organizations.
The bill’s impact on state law is to add a new deceptive trade practice under Chapter 598 of NRS and to expand civil remedies for people targeted by abusive copyright enforcement. It would affect copyright owners, enforcement firms, businesses, online content users, and others who receive infringement demands in Nevada. The measure also includes legislative findings emphasizing that Nevada should not interfere with good-faith copyright enforcement while trying to reduce the cost and burden of meritless or deceptive claims.
Overall sentiment in the bill text is supportive of copyright enforcement in principle but strongly protective against abuse. The findings repeatedly state that the Legislature wants to preserve legitimate copyright rights while discouraging bad-faith tactics and unnecessary litigation costs for Nevadans and Nevada businesses. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no additional public discussion or vote history to gauge broader legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s stated purpose.
The main point of contention is likely the line between legitimate copyright enforcement and a bad-faith assertion, since the bill gives courts broad discretion to evaluate intent and surrounding circumstances. Another potential issue is federal preemption, which the bill acknowledges by stating it is narrowly tailored not to conflict with federal copyright law. Copyright owners, licensing entities, and enforcement counsel may view the bill as a constraint on demand-letter practices, while recipients of aggressive infringement claims are the primary beneficiaries.
SB332 would amend Nevada’s deceptive trade practices law in Chapter 598 of NRS by adding a new prohibited practice: making a bad-faith claim or assertion of copyright infringement. It would create a civil cause of action for harmed recipients of such claims and authorize damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and enhanced exemplary damages. The bill also sets evidentiary factors for courts to assess bad faith and includes exceptions for certain copyright claims and nonprofit entities, while expressly stating that it should not interfere with good-faith copyright enforcement or conflict with federal law.
The bill’s stated sentiment is protective and reform-oriented: it supports copyright owners’ legitimate enforcement rights but seeks to curb abusive, deceptive, or meritless infringement demands. The legislative findings frame the measure as a narrow response to the expense and pressure of copyright litigation on Nevada residents, businesses, and the state. With no committee transcript or vote record provided, there is no separate recorded debate to indicate opposition or support beyond the bill’s text.
The likely contention centers on whether the bill could chill legitimate copyright enforcement by imposing liability for claims later deemed insufficient or unreasonable. Copyright holders and their agents may object to the bill’s bad-faith standard, the damages exposure, and the factors that could be used against them in litigation. On the other hand, businesses, content creators, and other recipients of demand letters are likely to support the measure as a safeguard against coercive settlement demands and unsupported infringement accusations. The bill’s explicit reference to federal preemption also signals a legal concern about the boundary between state deceptive trade practice law and federal copyright law.