PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 266.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Oct 22, 2019
Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2019 or the CASE Act of 2019
This bill creates the Copyright Claims Board, a body within the U.S. Copyright Office, to decide copyright disputes. Damages awarded by the board are capped at $30,000.
Participation in board proceedings is voluntary with an opt-out procedure for defendants, and parties may choose instead to have a dispute heard in court. If the parties agree to have their dispute heard by the board, they shall forego the right to be heard before a court and the right to a jury trial. Board proceedings shall have no effect on class actions.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The board shall be authorized to hear copyright infringement claims, actions for a declaration of noninfringement, claims that a party knowingly sent false takedown notices, and related counterclaims.
The bill provides for various procedures, including with respect to requests for information from the other party and requests for the board to reconsider a decision.
The board may issue monetary awards based on actual or statutory damages.
The parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees and costs except where there is bad faith misconduct.
A board's final determination precludes relitigating the claims in court or at the board. Parties may challenge a board decision in federal district court only if (1) the decision was a result of fraud, corruption, or other misconduct; (2) the board exceeded its authority or failed to render a final determination; or (3) in a default ruling or failure to prosecute, the default or failure was excusable.
People & committees
Rep. Jeffries, Hakeem S. [D-NY-8] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 266.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 410 - 6 (Roll no. 578). (text: CR H8345-8352)
House roll call 578 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 410 - 6 (Roll no. 578).(text: CR H8345-8352)
House roll call 578 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8370-8371)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2426.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8345-8353)
Mr. Jeffries moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 201.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 116-252.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 116-252.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 20, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2426 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2426 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2426 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2426 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.