PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 4, 2017
Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2017 or the CASE Act of 2017
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, and parties may choose instead to have a claim or defense 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.
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, 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, and such awards shall be limited to $5,000.
A board's final determination precludes relitigating the claims in court or at the board, but parties may apply to a federal district court for review of the decision.
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.
Committee Hearings Held.
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: Aug 11, 2025. 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.3945 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.3945 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.3945 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.3945 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.