4CHAN COMMUNITY SUPPORT LLC and LOLCOW, LLC, d/b/a KIWI FARMS, Plaintiffs, v. THE UK OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS, a/k/a OFCOM

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

4CHAN COMMUNITY SUPPORT LLC v. UK OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS 1:25-cv-02880 — District Court, District of Columbia

  • Docket No.
    1:25-cv-02880
  • Court
    District Court, District of Columbia
  • Filed
    Aug 26, 2025
  • Nature of Suit
    440 Civil Rights: Other
  • Cause
    28:2201 Declaratory Judgment
  • Jurisdiction
    Federal Question
  • Jury Demand
    None
  • Last Filing
    Jan 15, 2026

Parties (3)

Parties
LOLCOW, LLC, UK OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS, 4CHAN COMMUNITY SUPPORT LLC

Recent Filings (showing 5 of 30)

# Date Description Filing
13 Jan 15, 2026 REPLY to opposition to motion re 8 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by UK OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS. (Kry, Robert) (Entered: 01/16/2026) PDF
— Jan 1, 2026 Set/Reset Deadlines
— Jan 1, 2026 Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 1/19/2026. (tj)
— Dec 31, 2025 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
— Dec 31, 2025 MINUTE ORDER granting 12 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on or before January 19, 2026. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 1/1/2026. (lcrc2)
View all 30 filings
AnOminous said:
I don't know how the UK does it and how they apply it to foreign judgments, but there's a doctrine called collateral estoppel in the U.S., or in more normal human language, issue preclusion, where a party can't present a factual or legal argument in one court, prevail or lose on it, then turn around and take a contradictory factual position in another court.
Click to expand...
Fun fact: this is why Nintendo didn’t get butt fucked by Universal when Donkey Kong was released. Universal argued in a previous lawsuit that King Kong was in the public domain. They tried to assert copyright against Nintendo over Donkey Kong. When the court discovered they previously argued that it was in the public domain, they were livid and strongly ruled in favor of Nintendo.
 
George Lucas said:
Fun fact: this is why Nintendo didn’t get butt fucked by Universal when Donkey Kong was released. Universal argued in a previous lawsuit that King Kong was in the public domain. They tried to assert copyright against Nintendo over Donkey Kong. When the court discovered they previously argued that it was in the public domain, they were livid and strongly ruled in favor of Nintendo.
Click to expand...
It's also how Kirby got named. Nintendos lawyer in that suit was Jack Kirby
 
Response to MTD is due Jan 6th.
Screenshot 2025-12-23 173450.png
 
George Lucas said:
Oof that’s not much of an extension.
Click to expand...
Judge probably figures the Sovreign Immunity was an obvious claim by OFCOM, so if plaintiffs are serious about this they would have been ready for it anyway.

Which to be fair, it was. We were discussing that very things for weeks prior to OFCOM making it.
 
We have responded to OFCOM. Just got this, haven't read it yet. 40 pages long.

Edit: They think they can get around the Sovereign Immunity bullshit with the Commercial Activity Exception. I don't understand all of this, not a lawyer, but its well laid out. I think they got a shot at least.

gov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0001.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0002.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0003.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0004.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0005.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0006.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0007.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0008.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0009.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0010.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0011.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0012.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0013.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0014.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0015.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0016.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0017.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0018.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0019.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0020.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0021.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0022.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0023.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0024.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0025.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0026.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0027.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0028.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0029.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0030.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0031.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0032.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0033.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0034.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0035.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0036.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0037.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0038.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0039.jpggov.uscourts.dcd.284218.10.0_page-0040.jpg
 

Attachments

Last edited:
WelperHelper99 said:
We have responded to OFCOM. Just got this, haven't read it yet. 40 pages long.

Edit: They think they can get around the Sovereign Immunity bullshit with the Commercial Activity Exception. I don't understand all of this, not a lawyer, but its well laid out. I think they got a shot at least.
Click to expand...
This filing reads a little half-baked to me. Lots of little citation problems, some typos, quotations aren't cleaned up appropriately, etc. And the arguments could have been tightened up. Some of the forcefulness is lost due to these problems. I wouldn't be super happy if I were paying at normal rates for this work, but I don't know how exactly the representation is set up.

I hope the judge is just totally put off by the UK's conduct and trying to figure out how to bring the hammer down. Even a terrible filing (not to say this is terrible, it just could have been worked on some more) will win if the judge is in agreement with the party's position and can scrounge up enough law to get them across the line. A well written document just makes that job way easier for the judge.
 
he who has thus come/gone said:
This filing reads a little half-baked to me. Lots of little citation problems, some typos, quotations aren't cleaned up appropriately, etc. And the arguments could have been tightened up. Some of the forcefulness is lost due to these problems. I wouldn't be super happy if I were paying at normal rates for this work, but I don't know how exactly the representation is set up.
Click to expand...
This is Pro Bono. We are getting this for free.
he who has thus come/gone said:
I hope the judge is just totally put off by the UK's conduct and trying to figure out how to bring the hammer down. Even a terrible filing (not to say this is terrible, it just could have been worked on some more) will win if the judge is in agreement with the party's position and can scrounge up enough law to get them across the line. A well written document just makes that job way easier for the judge.
Click to expand...
I think it put up a competent defense. It certainly is not Russel Greer tier.
 
We need a pessimistic rating because I think the judge might read this and, instead of dealing with it, declare improper service and moot everything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom