Over the last decade, Schedule A lawsuits have become a central enforcement mechanism for brand owners seeking to combat the surge of online counterfeiting and infringement. These cases—most commonly filed in the Northern District of Illinois for historically positive treatment—allow brands to bring claims against large groups of anonymous online sellers in a single action. The model has proven efficient for rights holders operating in online marketplaces, but recent judicial developments suggest increased scrutiny of the process and its procedural safeguards.
This article provides an overview of Schedule A litigation, the associated benefits and criticisms, and what businesses should expect as courts continue to reevaluate these cases.
What Are Schedule A Lawsuits?
Schedule A lawsuits are intellectual property enforcement actions in which a plaintiff (such as a brand owner or other intellectual property owner) files suit against numerous defendants believed to be offering counterfeit or infringing goods or carrying out other infringing acts. These cases are characterized by their unique structure and procedure.
These lawsuits almost always include the following key components when brands are involved:
- Anonymous defendants are listed in a sealed “Schedule A,” identified only by marketplace usernames. The sealing is intended to prevent sellers from learning of the litigation and moving assets.
- The Plaintiff immediately moves for an ex parte temporary restraining order to freeze defendants’ payment accounts and require online marketplaces to disable product listings.
- Issuing asset restraints to prevent sellers from transferring funds or evading a judgment.
- Mass joinder, allowing a single plaintiff to sue dozens or even hundreds of unrelated sellers in one action.
Why Brands Use the Schedule A Model
Schedule A cases may be essential to protecting consumers and enforcing intellectual property rights in digital marketplaces. Counterfeit goods present safety risks, undermine brand reputation, and cause economic harm to businesses. A 2021 report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that counterfeit and pirated goods accounted for $467 billion in global trade, underscoring the scale of this problem.
A recent example is Warner Bros.’ enforcement action against sellers offering unauthorized “Harry Potter” merchandise across Amazon, Temu, and Walmart. These actions demonstrate how brand owners rely on swift injunctive relief to halt infringing sales and freeze proceeds before sellers can transfer the proceeds. The rapid, ex parte nature of Schedule A relief had been an effective tool available to address international counterfeit networks.
Unintended Consequences and Calls for Reform
While Schedule A cases target counterfeiters, critics argue the model can inadvertently sweep in small-scale or unintentional sellers with limited resources. One widely publicized example involved a Florida woman who sold approximately $280 worth of small homemade tumblers featuring a country singer’s likeness. The litigation resulted in a $250,000 default judgment and a freeze of her Amazon seller funds before the plaintiff ultimately withdrew enforcement. The case drew widespread attention and intensified concerns about the potential for disproportionate consequences.
Growing Judicial Scrutiny and Judge Kness’ Halt on Cases
Despite their popularity, Schedule A cases have faced increasing judicial skepticism from federal judges, especially in Chicago, the core jurisdiction for these filings. In an unprecedented move earlier this year, Judge John F. Kness stayed more than 50 Schedule A lawsuits to evaluate several fundamental procedural issues, including: whether ex parte TROs are appropriate in these circumstances; whether mass joinder of unrelated defendants complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; the extent to which filings should be sealed; and whether the model provides adequate notice and due process to defendants.
In his August ruling, Judge Kness effectively dismantled the traditional “Schedule A” approach. Judge Kness ruled that boilerplate allegations and secret proceedings fail to meet Rule 65(b)’s specificity requirements and due process standards, making it “all but impossible” to assess likelihood of success without adversarial input. Going forward, plaintiffs must provide detailed, particularized facts showing immediate irreparable harm, avoid reliance on secrecy, and cannot freeze assets to secure statutory damages. This decision signals that future Schedule A cases will require narrower joinder, more robust investigation of defendants, and remedies aligned with equitable principles rather than coercive tactics.
Where Schedule A Lawsuits Are Heading
For brand owners, Schedule A litigation remains a powerful enforcement tool in specific circumstances. Brand owners should anticipate more rigorous review of joinder and sealing protections, greater variation in how different judges and districts treat Schedule A cases, and a potential need to tailor litigation strategies specifically to avoid judicial pushback. Brand owners may also need to develop more detailed evidentiary submissions supporting ex parte relief and ensure that requests for sealed filings are narrowly drawn. While a powerful tool, they now, more than ever, require a brand to properly investigate any potential seller named in Schedule A so that they can narrowly tailor the relief requested.
Conclusion
The landscape of Schedule A litigation continues to evolve. While these lawsuits remain a tool for brand protection in the ecommerce era, courts are reassessing the model to ensure fairness and proper application of federal procedural rules. Brand owners should stay attentive to these developments and adjust strategies accordingly.
Our firm is available to assist brand owners pursuing enforcement. If you have any questions about Schedule A lawsuits or alternative tools in the ever-changing ecommerce enforcement landscape, please contact KJK (216.696.8700).