Federal Court Of Appeal Upholds Refusal Of Certification Of Reverse Class Action For Copyright Infringement For File Sharing

On July 16, 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal (the FCA) issued its decision in Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Salna, 2025 FCA 131, dismissing an appeal by Voltage Pictures, LLC et al. (collectively, Voltage) to certify a reverse class action proceeding in connection with claims for file-sharing copyright infringement. The FCA’s decision is part of a longstanding series of appeals and cross-appeals involving Voltage’s pursuit of a reverse class action.

As previously reported in the E-TIPS® Newsletter here, Voltage alleged copyright infringement against approximately 874 unknown class members whose IP addresses were used to upload and download films produced by Voltage without authorization. Voltage sought to certify a reverse class proceeding (i.e., a class action against a group of defendants) to pursue these claims. The Federal Court (the Court) refused to certify the reverse class action and granted Voltage leave to reapply for certification, finding that it needed to provide a revised litigation plan that addresses the Court’s concerns for (i) identifying and communicating with class members; and (ii) the funding of class counsel. Voltage appealed the Court’s decision, arguing that it erred on items (i) and (ii). The respondent, Mr. Salna, also sought by cross appeal to vary the Court’s order, arguing that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure for resolving the dispute and Voltage should not have been granted leave to reapply for certification.

In considering items (i) and (ii), the FCA found the following:

1. The Court did not err in finding that Voltage’s litigation plan, which relied on using the notice-and-notice regime under the Copyright Act to communicate with class members to obtain damages and enforce its copyright, was inconsistent with the purpose of the regime. However, the FCA noted that the Court should not have refused certification on this point but, instead, allow the parties to negotiate the notice issue and permit Voltage to present an amended plan.
2. The Court erred in requiring Voltage to address the funding of class counsel in their litigation plan because there is nothing in the Federal Courts Rules that required this as part of a reverse class proceeding.

However, the decision ultimately turned on the FCA finding a class action was not the preferable procedure for advancing the proceeding. The FCA reasoned that the common questions in the dispute have minimal importance when compared to the claim as a whole, which relies on proving an individual defendant undertook certain alleged actions to establish copyright infringement. Given that this was done on an individual basis, the FCA determined that having a reverse class action was not preferable to proceeding by individual applications.

This led the FCA to dismiss Voltage’s appeal, without leave to reapply for certification.

Summary By: Uday Bahal