Nevada committee hears bill to curb 'copyright trolling' with private cause of action

The Senate Commerce and Labor Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 332, which would create a state-level private cause of action against bad-faith assertions of copyright infringement, often described as “copyright trolling.” Caleb Green, an attorney who presented the bill on behalf of sponsor Sen. Melanie Neal (in absentia), said the measure is designed to give Nevadans a tool to respond when demand letters overstate legal exposure.

“This bill addresses copyright bad faith claims and targets the practice known as copyright trolling,” Caleb Green said. He described typical tactics by plaintiffs or contingent-fee enterprises that send high-dollar demand letters to individuals and small entities and said the proposal lists non-exhaustive factors to identify bad-faith claims, such as inflated settlement demands or misrepresentations of registration status.

Supporters framed the bill as consumer protection. Green said the measure would not bar valid copyright claims and would allow targets of bad-faith demands to seek damages, equitable relief and attorney fees. He pointed to North Carolina’s Abuse of Patent Assertions Act (APAA) — enacted for patents — as a precedent his draft mirrors on preemption questions and said he had included an exhibit showing a federal court finding the APAA did not preempt federal law in that instance.

Industry groups representing copyright owners urged caution. Joe Guild, outside counsel for the Motion Picture Association, argued that federal copyright law occupies the field and that state-law causes of action could be preempted. “Copyright law is exclusively federal law,” Guild said, and he said federal courts already sanction abusive practices and hold actors accountable. Melissa Ptak of the Motion Picture Association and Richard Reimer of ASCAP also testified, saying the bill could conflict with federal enforcement mechanisms and could complicate licensing and anti-piracy work that many rights holders carry out under federal law.

Green told the committee he welcomed conversations with stakeholders and the Attorney General’s office and noted conceptual amendments to shift statutory placement to a different chapter of Nevada law to preserve certain remedies. He said the intent is to narrowly target bad-faith actors while preserving legitimate copyright enforcement.

The committee took public testimony and did not take a formal vote on SB 332 during the hearing. Committee members asked technical and policy questions, including whether such a state remedy would be preempted by federal law and how the bill would treat registration requirements and demand-letter practices. Green and other witnesses said they anticipated further drafting and stakeholder meetings.

The hearing record includes written exhibits and a number of witnesses from both sides of the issue; the committee will decide at a later date whether to move the bill forward to work session.

The committee then closed the hearing on SB 332 and moved to other agenda items.