Prenda Robo-Calls = Stupidity Gone Automatic

Many Does have been reporting that the normal Prenda-Lutz harassment telephone calls have been replaced with an automatic  call-messaging system.

One Doe was kind enough to provide a transcript of the stupidity.  I assume they probably have a few different versions of messages to be applied to different groups of Does.  This message was for a Doe that refused to settle and gave Prenda the Richard Pryor ResponseTell me Prenda, how many people have been giving you the RPR lately?  The case this Doe is under was initially filed in July 2011, and was voluntarily dismissed in 2012.  So it looks like Prenda is going after Does when there is no active case against them.  Just more FUD from the great minds at Prenda.  Keep it up boys, just more evidence to support the abuse of process and harassment claims. 

This is [it said MY name] with Prenda Law. With our clients offer to settle being expired now for more than 30 days it is pretty clear to them that you don’t plan to enter into a settlement agreement with them which is fine. This call is to inform you that we are going to start the process of filing a lawsuit with your name in it. At first, you will receive time sensitive documents. We have found that most people do have an attorney review them. If you would like to get an idea of what the complaint will look like just go to our website www{.}wefightpiracy{.}com. We do have some of our recent filings there. If you have any questions give us a call. We can be reached at 305-748-2102 and your reference number is xxxx.

I understand that because of the increase in Does from the Lightspeed case, Lutz and company cannot handle the workload.  But seriously guys, do you really think the messages are having a better impact?  It is seriously a joke.

OK Does, please send me any recordings of the messages Prenda is leaving, as well as the case status (open/dismissed with or without prejudice).

DieTrollDie 🙂

About DieTrollDie

I'm one of the many 'John Does' (200,000+ & growing in the US) who Copyright Trolls have threatened with a civil law suit unless they are paid off. What is a Copyright Troll? Check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation link -
This entry was posted in Prenda Law Inc. and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Prenda Robo-Calls = Stupidity Gone Automatic

  1. Subscribe says:


  2. Anonymous says:

    Who writes their threat copy? I can’t take it, it sounds so unprofessional I wonder if the author graduated high school or even speaks English. “we are going to start the process of filing a lawsuit with your name in it”? Really? Here Buffy, let me give you a free editing job, I promise I won’t sue you for copyright infringement if you use my threat.

    This is with Prenda Law. As your settlement offer has been expired for over 30 days, we are calling to inform you that our client intends to proceed with filing an individual lawsuit, in which you will be named as the defendant or subscriber. Expect to receive time-sensitive documents from a process server in the near future, and we recommend that you hire an attorney to review them as your answer to the lawsuit will be due within 21 days of receipt. We have a sampling of recent case filings at if you would like to get a better idea of what to expect. If you have any questions please give us a call at , your case reference number is .

    See? That’s both scarier *and* more professional.

    Your welcome.

    • Analyzing linkedin profiles and other bits of information, I’m 95% convinced that Brett Gibbs is in charge of the wording.

    • EGN says:

      If these people were actually good at something, they’d probably have real jobs where they provide goods and/or services that are of actual value to others.

      Heck, if they were half-decent lawyers, they’d actually work for real clients and help them with real, legitimate legal matters rather than running some two-bit shakedown scheme of the most despicable and sleazy nature.

      Basically: What else do you expect from this low-life scum?

  3. Anonymous says:

    Who writes their threat copy? I can’t take it, it sounds so unprofessional I wonder if the author graduated high school or even speaks English. “we are going to start the process of filing a lawsuit with your name in it”? Really? Here Buffy, let me give you a free editing job, I promise I won’t sue you for copyright infringement if you use my threat.

    This is (Prenda employee name. Important!) with Prenda Law. As your settlement offer has been expired for over 30 days, we are calling to inform you that our client intends to proceed with filing an individual lawsuit, in which you will be named as the defendant or subscriber. Expect to receive time-sensitive documents from a process server in the near future, and we recommend that you hire an attorney to review them as your answer to the lawsuit will be due within 21 days of receipt. We have a sampling of recent case filings at (Prenda website) if you would like to get a better idea of what to expect. If you have any questions please give us a call at (Prenda number) , your case reference number is (reference number).

    See? That’s both scarier *and* more professional.

    Your welcome.

    P.S. For DTD, double-posted because the first time I tried to use some angle brackets in my post and apparently the comment formatting system ate them, so delete the busted post please.

  4. Love the title. I’m also drafting a post – more widely this “automatic stupidity” is publicized, the better.

    • Spent too much time on this. Maybe too much speculations, but anyway…

      This time I tried to look at the article with the eyes of a newcomer. Not that I totally avoided dependency on the context, but I tried. We’ll see what Reddit will say, so far its opinion was not flattering 🙂

  5. that anonymous coward says:

    The ultimate troll weapon… robo calling….
    When scary letters fail to do the trick, have our robotic voice put the fear of you into them…
    Maybe they should have spent the extra $5 and gotten a better voice.
    Of course calling people from cases dismissed with prejudice might be a stupid thing to do, but I expect no less from our friends at Pretenda Law….

  6. F U PRENDA says:

    Wow.. This is exactly the same message I got today. I knew it was a robo call by the cheap ass voice. I guess these crooks have too much on their plate.

  7. If you received one of these calls, please visit the poll page and let us know what state are you in. Thank you!

  8. Ugh says:


    Has anyone else received a new robocall from Prenda this week? I just received one from their toll-free number. It was a male voice, but the connection was terrible. He/it said: “This is Prenda Law calling in regards to the lawsuit that [inaudible]. Since you have ignored us, we are moving forward with litigation. We are going to send you INFORMAL discovery documents, so please have an attorney review them. If you have recently obtained an attorney in this matter, please have them call our office. Failing to properly respond to a lawsuit can result in a default judgment being entered against you. If we do obtain a default judgement against you, our client will be forced to garnish your wages or attach your assets please contact our office at 800-xxx-xxxx, or you can speak to a client services representative now by pressing 9.”

    The case I was involved in was dismissed (without prejudice), and they haven’t filed any individual cases in my jurisdiction. Discovery is a formal process supervised by a judge once litigation commences. My guess is their latest strategy is going to be to send out “informal discovery” requests to trick people into incriminating themselves.

    Have others received this call? If so, perhaps it is time to complain to the state bars that these clowns are practicing law without a license outside of Illinois and Florida.

    • Doe X says:

      Everyone dealing with Prenda most likely got this call. RoboLutz doesn’t discriminate. He just runs through the database.

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thanks for the update.

      We are going to send you “informal discovery” documents. Well a quick search came up an explanation of formal and informal discovery in divorce cases. As John Steele ran a family law firm, this is fitting. I’m not sure how often “informal” discovery is used in other legal proceedings, but I did see some mention of it for a DUI case. I would assume it could be used in any legal proceeding. But if there is no case with you as a named defendant, I don’t see how they could do this. It sounds like they are just fishing for information from Does.

      Informal Discovery The second method of collecting information is “informal discovery” whereby the parties exchange financial information or other pertinent relevant information through oral request or simple correspondence. For example, tax returns, pension statements, or 401(k) plan statements can be provided via regular mail. The advantage of this process is that it is inexpensive compared to “formal discovery.” The disadvantage of such a process may be that if a party wants to hide information, they could attempt to do so by not providing this information. Therefore, whether or not to conduct formal or informal discovery is a very important decision and involves careful analysis on the part of both the client and the lawyer. Even if informal discovery is conducted, it is a good idea to obtain a “Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities” so that in the event that something is later discovered, this document can be used to show the Court that the asset, debt or income was not included in the Divorce Decree.

      If Prenda doesn’t have attorneys in your jurisdiction, then it is unlikely it will go anywhere besides the usual threats. Please send us a copy of any “discovery” document you get in the mail.

      DTD 🙂

      • Doe X says:

        None of this is relevant if your not a party In a pending case. If your case was dismissed then you have no responsibility to respond to any document sent by Prenda. If they want to go through discovery then they need to file a lawsuit against you and request informal discovery or file a motion.. This is pure bullshit FUD at this point. Also, they blasted this robot all out to everyone again it seems. Sadly for Prenda, they don’t have a cheap Robo forensic investigator to handle the amount of discovery they are threatening Does with.

  9. Anonymous says:

    A thought occurred to me a couple weeks ago when reports of robocalls started to emerge, but I decided to give Prenda some time to double-down on their stupidity before I mentioned it publicly. Now that they have clearly done that I figure it’s probably too late for them to turn back.

    Since they appear to be quite indiscriminate with these calls, including Does who have been dismissed even with prejudice, what happens if (or more likely given Prenda’s incompetence, when) they robocall someone who already settled? Surely this will breach any confidentiality agreement signed as part of the settlement, and is likely decent grounds for complaints, sanctions, countersuits, etc.

    Unfortunately the people who settled are the ones least likely to have found this and SJD’s site, and even if the harassment is actionable they are also the ones who likely want to keep as quiet as possible. That said, there may be a few people who settled in the early days when there was less information available about the scam, and maybe fresh harassment will piss them off and lead them to sites like this or Fight Copyright Trolls. Finding any such victims of post-settlement harassment could be a valuable opening for a class-action or other lawsuit against Prenda… Just something to keep in mind.

  10. Doe X says:

    I figure Prenda wasn’t dumb enough to leave Does who settled in the database. Now… Does who have been dismissed is another story. Prenda can only justify(..barely) sending these messages to Does who are part of a pending case. Sending these messages to Does who were dismissed from old cases that were often dismissed 4+ months ago is laughable and borders on unethical.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hah, yeah maybe that’s the ONE thing they are careful about? But I wouldn’t hold my breath, considering they can’t even get copyright applications turned in or their robocalls scripted properly. Yes this would be a perhaps fatal mistake but they haven’t exactly been meticulous so far, be on the lookout for bigger screw-ups!

    • Anonymous says:

      They’ve been doing this shit to me for 7+ months post-dismissal 4 times/week. First it was Lutz, then some other idiot with a sub-100 IQ, now a fucking computer set up by someone with a sub-100 IQ (any guesses?). Hell, even Perea sent me a few letters at first. Now they keep telling me I’m part of a lawsuit…uh no. Four times per week for the past couple months I’ve been told that I received letters and that I’m gonna get informal discovery documents…still waiting. I just laugh my ass off and record the messages.

  11. Thanks to Jen from TX: I updated my post about Prenda’s robocalls with a recording she sent to me.

    • Anonymous says:

      “A lawsuit with your name in it.”

      Wow, just realized how pathetic Prenda is. They aren’t even threatening to sue the targets of these calls, at least not name them as defendants. Hedging their bets, they are threatening more of the one Doe suits, where the subscriber is named in the complaint but not as the defendant. So John is still too much of a pussy to actually file a lawsuit against a defendant, as is standard procedure for virtually every other lawsuit ever filed.

      What a transparent POS.

  12. Dough says:

    So if someone did get this “informal discovery” thing there is really no reason to actually just give info out right? It seems completely voluntary to me.

    • Anonymous says:

      No more than there is a reason to just give out money because they ask for it.

      If you are actually getting sued it’s a different matter but there will be no confusion in the unlikely even that happens.

    • Doe X says:

      If you get informal discovery documentation from Prenda… I would use it as emergency toolet paper and formally continue to ignore them. Also, check with a vgood consumer lawyer who works on contingency anout the robocalls in your state. Each call could be costing Prenda $500 if your in Cali. Lawyer most likely gets the bulk but the calls will stop and pay for a nice dinner 😉

  13. I am not a lawyer says:

    i am just curious, but could you as a doe sent them back your own informal discovery questionair?? they want to know my ish, i want to know theirs, isn’t discovery usually 2 sided anyway??

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Yes, of course you could. Funny, I was thinking of drafting up something like that. I would love to see their template/form first and base a response off of it. You have to be careful in what you say, as well as note that it could piss them off and they could try to make an example of you. I’m sure they would have no problem responding to detailed questions on 6881 Forensics LLC (Peter Hansmeier), and the untested (or certified) software and “technicians.” “Yeah Right!” 😉

      DTD 🙂

      • Raul says:

        Prenda’s contingency fee schedule amongst itself, it’s affiliates/outside counsel, 6881 Forensics and it’s clients would be another interesting avenue to explore.

  14. john doe says:

    I suggest iPhone users download a “silent ringer” for your phone and assign it to a contact named something like “Prenda Scumbags”. Assign all their phone numbers to this “Prenda Scumbags” contact. Then when they call NEVER HERE YOUR PHONE RING AGAIN!!!
    The Prenda recordings I’ve heard on this site are just a riot! The organizational and planning skills of a 10 year old are better and more professional. Donate to DieTrollDie now!!

  15. FUPL says:

    I just got the request for informal discovery from Prenda today. Should I just ignore it since I have not been named in a case on Pacer? Also how long does it usually take for these parasites to drop a case? The one I’m in they filed on 12/30/11 but nothing new has happened since 4/23/12.

    • Raul says:

      Ignore it but can you forward a copy to DTD as he will redact all your personal info and it will be beneficial for all to see what this latest “informal discovery” ploy is all about.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        I have copy, but I’m away and can’t post it up right. Will do it Monday. Same old Prenda/Steele garbage.

        DTD 🙂

      • I have a copy too, albeit the quality is not best, some pages are cropped. I would be glad to receive one as well. We need to shed the light onto this new boogieman ASAP, before many people fall on this trap. first robocalls, now this crap… It shows Steele’s desperation, given the “quality” of their ideas (especially robocalls), they try to grab straws while sinking.

        Don’t even think replying to this shit. Use it as CTVic suggested.

  16. ab6775 says:

    I too received a “Letter of Request for Informal Discovery” from Prenda for a case that was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by them in December 2011. There has been zero action in the case since then. I particularly like the part where they state:

    “Your written response to this letter is requested 08/08/2012 days from date of letter or at your discretion, whichever is sooner.”

    Exactly how many days is 08/08/2012. If I do the math it is ~4.97e-4 days. That’s quite a fast turnaround they’re looking for.

    Stupid trolls.

    In terms of phone calls, I wouldn’t know, because I never, ever answer my phone when a number comes up that isn’t already in my phone book. If it is important, someone will leave a message and I’ll call them back. I have been receiving some spam like calls from a California number (310-598-1724) but haven’t answer one yet. They don’t leave a message and I haven’t found any information about the number online other than some financial scams about loans from a few years back.

    • Raul says:

      Sounds like the ARDC will be opening yet another file on Prenda soon.

      • Anonymous says:

        Yep. I got one too. This was a case where the judge severed all but Doe #1 last year, case wallowed on the docket and then was voluntarily dismissed months ago. Also a case where Plaintiff did not have a copyright registration until after the alleged dates of infringement.

        This is so unprofessional it is unbelievable. Almost no information specific to the case, it doesn’t even have the name of the file (so how are people supposed to know what to preserve), or copies of any court documents or copyright registration. They even saved money by not providing forms to fill out, I’m just supposed to send them “a letter” with a bunch of garbage they request. Looks like one form letter that they address and put the case name and “reference #” on. Oh, but they will file “a motion” if I don’t respond, they don’t bother to explain how they will do that without a case.

        I would like to hear opinions on this from attorneys defending these cases, when this crosses the line to behavior that warrants a countersuit or bar complaint. I have a couple friends who are attorneys that I’ve been keeping abreast of these cases and one has encouraged me to discuss launching a class-action with their firm (they do a considerable amount of IP work). Knowing Prenda is a paper tiger I have been content to leave them alone as long as they don’t pursue me individually, but these continuing abuses are making me feel obligated to get my pound of flesh. I suspect this and the robocalls are going to provoke some serious backlash.

        This is really a pathetic move from a guy who has been bragging about hiring more attorneys and unleashing thousands of individual cases. Just low budget desperation, no wonder Buffy doesn’t even stop by to bluster anymore.

        And I also loved the “08/08/2012 days” thing, these guys couldn’t look this dumb if they tried.

      • I’ve got a good copy and want to publish it tonight. Honestly I feel dumb (surprise?) and have no idea where to start. Possibly I’ll just publish this Prenda’s Shame and write a simple paragraph urging victims not to respond (unfortunately, so me will). I’ve got a lawyer’s opinion too.

      • Anonymous says:

        I forgot to mention, the letter also states that a sample motion to compel and proposed order are attached as “exhibits” (not sure what an exhibit to a letter is, but OK). But they were not included.

        At first I thought, wow these guys are dumb, how could that get by proofreading? If they decided they didn’t want to spend money on paper and ink for the sample motion and order, at least take the language about the samples out of the final draft. Then I realized they probably got through printing the discover requests and realized they had already blown their budget and couldn’t afford the samples.

        This is Budget Stooges Amateur Hour, not a convincing attempt to scare and intimidate people.

  17. anonymous says:

    Looks like Pretenda could use a refresher course on “Mail merge 101” lol….

  18. RB says:

    Got my first robocall today.. Didn’t listen to the whole thing to determine which version it was.

  19. Pingback: Don't Get A Default In Your Troll Case | Copyright Infringement Attorney

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s