Nintendo has just landed a massive legal blow in its ongoing battle against Nintendo Switch piracy.

On September 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge Lauren King of the Western District of Washington entered a $4.5 million default judgment against James C. Williams, better known online as “Archbox,” following Nintendo of America’s lawsuit over the alleged distribution of unauthorized Nintendo Switch games and circumvention software.

But there’s an important detail here: this was not a traditional trial or jury verdict. Williams did not file a defense to Nintendo’s lawsuit, allowing the company to request a default judgment. The court granted Nintendo’s motion in full, awarding the $4.5 million in statutory copyright damages it requested and imposing a permanent injunction that restricts Williams from continuing the activities covered by the order.

For Switch piracy watchers, this is a major development because Nintendo didn’t just secure a financial judgment. The court also ordered Williams to shut down online shops and other platforms under his control that had allegedly been used to distribute unauthorized Nintendo games and circumvention technology.

What Nintendo’s $4.5 Million Judgment Actually Means

The case is officially Nintendo of America Inc. v. James C. Williams, case number 2:24-cv-00960-LK.

Under the court’s September 23 order, Nintendo received $4.5 million in statutory damages for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).

That distinction matters. The $4.5 million figure is not a court finding that Nintendo lost exactly $4.5 million in game sales. Nintendo pursued statutory copyright damages, and the court awarded the amount requested as part of the default judgment.

The judgment also comes with a permanent injunction covering Williams’ alleged piracy-related activities.

Among other restrictions, Williams is permanently prohibited from operating online shops that offer unauthorized Nintendo Switch games or distributing Nintendo games without authorization. The injunction also covers software and technology designed to circumvent Nintendo’s technological protections.

The court further ordered Williams to immediately disable access to online shops and other platforms under his control that had allegedly been used to distribute infringing Nintendo games or circumvention technology.

The order specifically requires Williams to “immediately disable access to all online ‘shops’” under his control that offered extensive libraries of pirated Nintendo Switch games.

That makes the ruling more than a giant dollar figure. It directly targets the online infrastructure Nintendo says was being used to distribute unauthorized games.

Not every big gaming headline this week involves a courtroom. If you’re eyeing a splashy collector’s edition instead, there’s a lot of fine print worth knowing before you buy. Check our breakdown of GTA 6’s $399.99 Vice City Collection Has 11 Items, But the Game Is Sold Separately

So, Who Exactly Is Archbox?

James C. Williams became known online as Archbox, a name closely associated with Nintendo Switch piracy communities.

Nintendo’s lawsuit identified Williams as someone allegedly involved in operating multiple online communities and storefronts used to distribute unauthorized Nintendo Switch games and circumvention software.

According to Nintendo’s allegations described in the court record, Williams obtained thousands of Nintendo games and used circumvention software while establishing websites and online communities that facilitated their unauthorized distribution.

Nintendo’s complaint identified 30 representative copyrighted games that it alleged Williams had infringed, while asserting that the total number of copyrighted game files involved was substantially larger.

That 30-game list became particularly important to Nintendo’s damages request.

However, because Williams did not defend the lawsuit, the case never developed into a conventional contested trial where both sides presented their evidence and arguments before a jury.

Instead, the court considered Nintendo’s request for default judgment after Williams failed to plead or otherwise defend the case.

Why Did This Become a Default Judgment?

This is probably the most important part of the story to understand.

Nintendo originally filed its federal lawsuit in June 2024. According to the court record, Williams was properly served with the summons and complaint at his residence.

He did not file an answer or otherwise appear to defend the lawsuit.

Nintendo subsequently asked the clerk to enter a default. After reviewing evidence concerning service, the court determined that Williams had been properly served, and the clerk entered the default.

There was later a limited legal appearance involving an attorney representing Williams in connection with a subpoena directed at Google. However, the court record made clear that this was not an appearance for all purposes of the lawsuit.

Williams ultimately did not defend himself against Nintendo’s claims.

Nintendo then moved for default judgment, and Judge Lauren King granted the motion in full on September 23, 2026.

So, while the judgment is legally binding, it should not be described as the result of a conventional trial in which Williams presented a defense against Nintendo’s allegations.

While Nintendo works to shut piracy operations down, other publishers are busy giving players new content to dive into. One crossover event has you racing against the clock to save some very familiar faces. Read our guide on Fortnite’s Toy Story 5 Event Lets Players Rescue Woody, Buzz and More Before October 5

Nintendo’s Case Went Beyond Pirated Games

The lawsuit wasn’t limited to allegations that unauthorized copies of Switch games were being distributed.

Nintendo brought seven claims against Williams, including allegations of:

• Willful copyright infringement
• Contributory copyright infringement and inducement
• Circumvention of technological measures
• Trafficking in circumvention devices
• Breach of contract
• Tortious interference with contract

That broader set of claims explains why the final injunction reaches beyond simply telling Williams not to distribute copied game files.

Nintendo also challenged the alleged use and distribution of technology intended to bypass its technological protections.

The final order therefore restricts Williams from distributing or helping others distribute unauthorized Nintendo games, as well as software or technology designed to circumvent Nintendo’s protections.

How Nintendo Traced Williams

The road to the lawsuit also involved Williams’ online activity.

According to Nintendo’s allegations, the company connected his online identity with information associated with a Nintendo account. That account had previously been used to request hardware-related service from Nintendo.

The information became important because it helped Nintendo identify Williams and establish where to serve the lawsuit.

Before going to court, Nintendo also sent Williams a cease-and-desist letter.

The court’s description of the evidence states that Williams acknowledged receiving the letter and subsequently exchanged emails with Nintendo’s attorney. Nintendo said Williams indicated that he intended to retain an attorney, but the company ultimately did not receive confirmation that he would comply with its demands.

Nintendo then proceeded with the federal lawsuit.

Why the Court Issued a Permanent Injunction

Nintendo’s win wasn’t limited to money.

Judge King also considered whether the company had met the requirements for a permanent injunction. The court concluded that Nintendo had established grounds for one, including the risk of continued infringement and the inadequacy of monetary damages alone to address the alleged harm.

The court considered Nintendo’s efforts to contact Williams before filing the lawsuit and evidence that, according to the record, at least one online shop allegedly associated with him remained operational when the case was filed.

The court also considered evidence regarding Williams’ online activities and Nintendo’s allegations that circumvention software continued to be distributed after enforcement actions.

The result was a permanent injunction covering the activities identified in the court’s order.

For Williams, that means the legal restrictions continue beyond the $4.5 million judgment.

Where Did the $4.5 Million Come From?

The number might look random at first glance, but it has a specific legal basis.

Nintendo requested statutory copyright damages rather than relying only on a calculation of its actual financial losses.

The company asked the court for $4.5 million, and the court awarded that full amount under federal copyright law.

The figure should therefore be understood as a statutory damages award, not as an independently proven calculation of Nintendo’s lost sales.

The court’s order expressly awards Nintendo of America $4.5 million in statutory damages for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).

That distinction is especially important when discussing a default judgment because the underlying allegations were not tested through a contested trial in which Williams presented a defense.

Nintendo’s Bigger Switch Piracy Fight Is Still Going

The Archbox case is just one part of Nintendo’s broader intellectual-property enforcement campaign.

Nintendo’s own intellectual-property enforcement materials say the company works to reduce the availability of unauthorized game copies, circumvention devices and software, and counterfeit Nintendo products.

Its enforcement information specifically discusses products such as piracy cartridges, game copiers, USB piracy devices, mod chips and related software capable of bypassing Nintendo’s security measures.

Nintendo has pursued both individuals and businesses connected to the distribution of those products.

One related Washington federal case involves Ryan Michael Daly, who operated Modded Hardware. Nintendo filed that lawsuit on June 28, 2024, the same day it filed the Williams case. Court records identify that matter as a copyright action against Daly and his business.

Together, these cases show that Nintendo’s legal strategy reaches beyond people allegedly distributing game files. The company is also targeting businesses accused of selling hardware, software and services designed to bypass console protections.

Nintendo Just Won Another Piracy-Related Case in Europe

The timing is also interesting.

On September 2, 2026, the District Court of The Hague ruled against a seller involving MIG Switch products and an R4 game list, finding that the products and activities at issue infringed Nintendo’s intellectual-property rights.

That case involved products capable of bypassing technical protection measures on Nintendo Switch systems and enabling unauthorized copies of Nintendo games to be played or created.

The Dutch ruling adds another piece to Nintendo’s international effort to restrict the commercial distribution of technology that facilitates unauthorized game copying.

Nintendo has also warned consumers about the legal and technical consequences associated with unauthorized circumvention products. Its official piracy guidance says such products can bypass Nintendo’s security measures and may interfere with the functionality of authentic Nintendo consoles, games and systems.

What Happens to Archbox Now?

The September 23 judgment immediately changes Williams’ legal position.

He is now subject to the court’s permanent injunction and owes Nintendo the $4.5 million statutory damages award.

He also cannot continue the activities prohibited by the injunction, including operating or controlling online shops used to distribute unauthorized Nintendo games or circumvention software.

However, there is another important distinction: a judgment does not automatically mean Nintendo will collect the entire $4.5 million.

Collection of a civil judgment can require separate enforcement proceedings, and the court’s order does not establish how much Nintendo will ultimately recover.

For Nintendo, though, the judgment represents another significant federal court order supporting its efforts to enforce its copyrights and restrict unauthorized distribution of Switch games and circumvention technology.

Why the Archbox Case Matters to Switch Players

For the gaming community, the Archbox case shows just how far Nintendo is willing to take its anti-piracy strategy.

This wasn’t simply a takedown request or a copyright complaint sent to a website. Nintendo pursued a federal lawsuit, obtained a default judgment, secured $4.5 million in statutory damages, and received a permanent injunction covering the distribution of unauthorized Nintendo games and circumvention technology.

At the same time, the company continues to pursue cases involving businesses accused of selling hardware and other products capable of bypassing Nintendo’s technological protections.

For Switch players, the legal landscape is becoming increasingly clear: Nintendo continues to treat unauthorized game distribution and circumvention technology as an active intellectual-property enforcement priority.

Nintendo’s own policy materials state that its goal is to reduce the availability of unauthorized copies and circumvention products across its platforms.

The Williams judgment now adds a substantial U.S. federal court order to that continuing campaign.

Legal battles aren’t the only thing shaping how you’ll play games in the years ahead. One major hardware maker is already reportedly weighing a change that could affect how you buy games altogether. For more, read our story on PlayStation Physical Games Could Get a Lifeline as Sony Reportedly Polls Developers on 2028 Disc Cutoff

Disclaimer

This article reports publicly available court records and relevant reporting as of September 26, 2026. Allegations contained in Nintendo’s original complaint are identified as allegations where appropriate. The $4.5 million statutory damages award and permanent injunction are established by the federal court’s September 23, 2026 default judgment. The judgment should not be confused with a contested trial verdict, and the damages figure should not be described as proof that Nintendo suffered exactly $4.5 million in lost sales.

Sources

• U.S. District Court order: Nintendo of America Inc. v. Williams
• Nintendo Intellectual Property & Piracy FAQ
• Nintendo: Circumvention Products legal information
• Aftermath: Nintendo Wins $4.5M In Switch Pirate Lawsuit
• Nintendo of America Inc. v. Daly court docket
• District Court of The Hague ruling on Nintendo’s MIG Switch case

Featured Image Credit: Erik Mclean on Pexels