PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 13, 2016
Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2016 or the CASE Act of 2016
This bill establishes in the U.S. Copyright Office a small claims board to serve as an alternative forum for parties to voluntarily seek to resolve certain copyright claims if the total monetary recovery sought by a party does not exceed $30,000.
The board is authorized to: (1) conduct hearings and conferences to facilitate parties' settlement of claims and counterclaims; (2) render independent determinations based on copyright laws and regulations; (3) award monetary relief; and (4) require cessation or mitigation of infringing activity, including the takedown or destruction of infringing materials, where the parties agree.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill preserves the right of parties to instead pursue a claim or defense in court.
Board proceedings shall not require in-person appearances by parties. Proceedings may take place through Internet-based teleconference applications.
Discovery shall be limited to the production of relevant information and documents, written interrogatories, and written requests for admission. But the board may consider a party's request for additional limited discovery.
A party may request: (1) the claims board to reconsider its determinations, and (2) the Register of Copyrights to review a claims board determination if the board denies reconsideration.
A final determination precludes relitigation of the claims before a court or the board, but parties may apply for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to vacate, modify, or correct a determination that: (1) was issued as a result of fraud, corruption, misrepresentation, or misconduct; (2) exceeds the board's authority or fails to render a definite determination; or (3) was based on a default determination or failure to prosecute that was due to excusable neglect.
If a party fails to pay or comply with relief awarded in a final board determination, the aggrieved party may apply for a court order confirming the final award.
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.
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: Aug 12, 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.5757 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.5757 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.5757 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.5757 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.