The only time it makes sense to sue in civil court is either:
- The damages in question would exceed hundreds of thousands of dollars
- You want to make an example out of the defendant and have lots of money to burn
- You are engaging in litigation as part of a settlement extortion scheme ala Prenda Law
America does not award legal fees to the victor - in fact, it's considered so un-American that American lawyers literally call it the British Rule[0]. As a result, small actors - which you almost certainly are - will bankrupt themselves just getting to the discovery phase, regardless of if they are plaintiffs or defendants.
In a few situations, this has become such a problem that US law either provides time-saving motions for common forms of nuisance lawsuits[1] or uses it as a way to encourage certain behaviors[2] out of litigants. However, this kind of fraud case will almost certainly not fall under such measures, and you are almost certainly too small to defend.
Representing yourself in court is technically possible but practically a death sentence to your case. And an actual lawyer would tell you exactly what I've told you, except with actual attorney-client privilege[3] involved, and they'd charge you for telling you that. Except they'd probably also add in a bunch of stuff about class-action waivers and binding arbitration[4] that would make it nearly impossible for them to represent you.
[0] I've also heard French Rule.
[1] Such as Anti-SLAPP motions, though these are not in federal law yet.
[2] The copyright registration system comes with a few key perks; notably statutory damages and the ability to recover attorney's fees. If you do not have either you cannot economically sue a copyright infringer, which sounds like a really good way to comply with Berne without complying with Berne.
[3] I am not a lawyer.
[4] For what it's worth, there are some crafty lawyers that have figured out a way to help people mass-arbitrate, but companies are trying to fight back against that too.
- You want to make an example out of the defendant and have time to burn
Sue them in small claims court. You won't get significant money, but they'll have to burn a little money on lawyers. You have the chance at the moral victory of the judge saying you're right*. You probably have a decent chance of getting on the HN front page when you first file and when you win/lose. You have a noticably higher chance at being covered in the mainstream media than if you just complain on the internet.
*The judge generally doesn't literally say you're right
- The damages in question would exceed hundreds of thousands of dollars
- You want to make an example out of the defendant and have lots of money to burn
- You are engaging in litigation as part of a settlement extortion scheme ala Prenda Law
America does not award legal fees to the victor - in fact, it's considered so un-American that American lawyers literally call it the British Rule[0]. As a result, small actors - which you almost certainly are - will bankrupt themselves just getting to the discovery phase, regardless of if they are plaintiffs or defendants.
In a few situations, this has become such a problem that US law either provides time-saving motions for common forms of nuisance lawsuits[1] or uses it as a way to encourage certain behaviors[2] out of litigants. However, this kind of fraud case will almost certainly not fall under such measures, and you are almost certainly too small to defend.
Representing yourself in court is technically possible but practically a death sentence to your case. And an actual lawyer would tell you exactly what I've told you, except with actual attorney-client privilege[3] involved, and they'd charge you for telling you that. Except they'd probably also add in a bunch of stuff about class-action waivers and binding arbitration[4] that would make it nearly impossible for them to represent you.
[0] I've also heard French Rule.
[1] Such as Anti-SLAPP motions, though these are not in federal law yet.
[2] The copyright registration system comes with a few key perks; notably statutory damages and the ability to recover attorney's fees. If you do not have either you cannot economically sue a copyright infringer, which sounds like a really good way to comply with Berne without complying with Berne.
[3] I am not a lawyer.
[4] For what it's worth, there are some crafty lawyers that have figured out a way to help people mass-arbitrate, but companies are trying to fight back against that too.