Nintendo just added another significant entry to its anti-piracy record. On September 23, 2026, a U.S. federal court granted Nintendo of America a $4.5 million default judgment and permanent injunction against James C. Williams — known online as “Archbox” — for operating piracy shops distributing unauthorized Nintendo Switch games and circumvention software. The case had been running since June 2024, and the ruling is one of the larger individual piracy judgments Nintendo has secured in recent years.
There’s an important procedural detail to understand here though, because the headlines can make this sound more clear-cut than it technically is. This wasn’t a full trial with both sides presenting evidence. Let’s break down exactly what happened and what it actually means.
Key Takeaways
- Nintendo won a $4.5 million default judgment against James “Archbox” Williams on September 23, 2026
- The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in June 2024
- Williams failed to defend the lawsuit, resulting in a default judgment rather than a contested trial
- Damages were calculated at $150,000 per work across 30 representative Nintendo games — the maximum statutory amount for willful infringement
- Games listed include Tears of the Kingdom, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, and Animal Crossing: New Horizons
- A permanent injunction bans Williams from distributing pirated games, circumvention software, or encouraging others to do so
- The injunction covers platforms including Reddit, Instagram, X, TikTok, Discord, and Telegram
- Nintendo allegedly identified Williams by connecting the Archbox online identity to a Nintendo device sent in for repair
- Many of Williams’ piracy shops had already gone offline before the final ruling
- Whether Nintendo will actually collect the $4.5 million remains an open question
Who Is James “Archbox” Williams?
Williams operated and promoted online piracy activities targeting Nintendo Switch games under the alias Archbox. He was associated with the r/SwitchPirates community on Reddit and, according to Nintendo’s allegations accepted for the purpose of the default judgment, ran several online “pirate shops” providing unauthorized copies of Nintendo Switch games.
Nintendo alleged that Williams had been involved in obtaining thousands of Nintendo game files, using circumvention software to bypass Nintendo’s technological protections, distributing those games through websites and online communities, and providing technical assistance to other users wanting to download and play pirated copies. That last point is significant — this wasn’t just about one person downloading games for personal use. The allegations describe an organized distribution operation with a community support element built into it.
Why Was This a Default Judgment and Not a Trial?
This is the part that deserves more attention than most coverage gives it.
Nintendo filed the lawsuit in June 2024. The company sent Williams a cease-and-desist letter in March 2024, and there was some initial back-and-forth where Williams reportedly indicated he intended to get legal representation. A lawyer did appear at one point, but only for the limited purpose of responding to a subpoena involving Google. Williams never formally defended the lawsuit itself.
When a defendant fails to respond to a lawsuit, the court can enter a default judgment. This means the judge treats the plaintiff’s properly pleaded factual allegations as established and then evaluates whether the requested relief is legally appropriate. The court doesn’t simply hand over whatever number the plaintiff asks for — it still has to conclude the damages are reasonable and legally sound — but the defendant’s side of the story doesn’t get presented because they chose not to show up.
So to be precise about what happened here:
- Nintendo filed the lawsuit
- Williams failed to defend it
- The court entered default
- The judge reviewed Nintendo’s claims and requested relief
- Nintendo received the $4.5 million judgment and permanent injunction
This is a legally enforceable ruling, but it’s not the same as a jury deciding Nintendo’s evidence defeated a defense Williams actually mounted.
How Did Nintendo Calculate $4.5 Million?
The math here is straightforward once you know the framework. U.S. copyright law allows for statutory damages up to $150,000 per work for willful infringement. Nintendo chose 30 representative games from the alleged infringement and applied that maximum figure to each:
30 games × $150,000 = $4,500,000
The court concluded that Nintendo had sufficiently established willful infringement for the purposes of the default and found the $4.5 million figure reasonable. Notably, Nintendo also chose not to seek statutory damages under the DMCA or attorneys’ fees, which the court actually referenced as a gesture of reasonableness when evaluating the award.
Worth emphasizing: Nintendo alleged that Williams had infringed hundreds or thousands of game files. They only sought damages on 30 of them. The $4.5 million figure, while large, is actually a fraction of what could theoretically have been claimed across the full alleged scope.
Which Nintendo Games Were Listed?
Among the 30 representative games identified in the case were some of Nintendo’s biggest titles:
- The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom
- The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
- Mario Kart 8 Deluxe
- Super Smash Bros. Ultimate
- Animal Crossing: New Horizons
- Super Mario Odyssey
- Super Mario Bros. Wonder
- Luigi’s Mansion 3
- Pikmin 4
- Splatoon 3
The full list of 30 works is contained in the court order.
What Does the Permanent Injunction Actually Ban?
The $4.5 million gets the headlines, but the permanent injunction is arguably just as significant because it governs Williams’ future conduct. He is now permanently prohibited from:
- Distributing, uploading, downloading, selling, or advertising unauthorized Nintendo games
- Distributing or selling circumvention software designed to bypass Nintendo’s protections
- Encouraging other people to obtain pirated Nintendo games or use circumvention tools
- Operating any online shops that offered pirated Nintendo Switch content
The injunction also extends to social media and communications platforms, specifically naming Reddit, Instagram, X, TikTok, Discord, and Telegram. Accounts used in connection with the infringing activity across those platforms are covered by the shutdown order.
The DMCA Angle — It Wasn’t Just About Pirated Games
This case went beyond someone sharing unauthorized game files. Nintendo also alleged violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), specifically its anti-circumvention and anti-trafficking provisions.
Nintendo’s Switch uses technological protection measures to prevent unauthorized access to its games. The allegations against Williams included distributing software specifically designed to bypass those protections — not just distributing pirated game files themselves. That distinction matters legally because it brings in a separate layer of liability beyond standard copyright infringement.
How Did Nintendo Actually Find Williams?
This is probably the most unusual part of the story. According to reporting on the case, Nintendo’s investigation connected the Archbox online identity to Williams by tracing information back to a Nintendo device that had been sent to Nintendo for repair. That connection reportedly allowed Nintendo to link the persona to a real person and ultimately send the March 2024 cease-and-desist letter.
The court record confirms the cease-and-desist correspondence and the subsequent communications that followed. Some of the investigation specifics come from reporting rather than findings established through a contested trial, given the default nature of the judgment.
Will Nintendo Actually Collect the Money?
Winning a $4.5 million judgment and actually receiving $4.5 million are genuinely two different things. Williams apparently didn’t defend the lawsuit, and according to reporting, his online operations and accounts had largely disappeared before the final ruling — many of the piracy shops were reportedly already offline following Nintendo’s initial cease-and-desist action.
The judgment gives Nintendo a legally enforceable claim for the awarded amount, which they can pursue through various means. But whether Williams has assets anywhere near that figure is a separate question entirely, and one the court’s ruling doesn’t answer.
The practical value of this ruling arguably goes beyond the money. The permanent injunction restricts Williams from restarting or assisting the same kinds of operations in future, and the case creates another very publicly documented example of the financial exposure that comes with running large-scale Nintendo piracy networks.
Where This Fits in Nintendo’s Broader Anti-Piracy Push
The Williams case is part of a sustained legal campaign Nintendo has been running against Switch piracy in multiple forms. Some recent examples:
- Yuzu emulator (2024): Nintendo pursued the creators of the popular Switch emulator, arguing it facilitated piracy. The case settled, the developers shut Yuzu down, and agreed to pay $2.4 million.
- Ryan Daley / Modded Hardware (2025): Nintendo obtained a $2 million judgment against Daley for selling modded Switch consoles, modchips, and MIG flash cartridges.
- James Williams / Archbox (2026): The $4.5 million default judgment covered piracy shop operation and circumvention software distribution.
The pattern is clear — Nintendo is going after the full ecosystem, not just individual downloaders. Emulator developers, modchip sellers, piracy shop operators, and community promoters have all ended up in Nintendo’s legal crosshairs at different points.
It’s worth noting that Nintendo’s aggressive IP enforcement extends well beyond piracy too — the company is equally protective of its game content in other contexts. That same attention to protecting its products is visible in how it handles merchandise and licensing, which connects to wider conversations about the gaming industry’s relationship with physical collectibles and limited releases, like the kind of collector interest surrounding releases such as the LEGO Astro Bot Gift with Purchase PlayStation Set. Official channels matter, and Nintendo’s legal record is a big reason why.
The Case at a Glance
- Case name: Nintendo of America Inc. v. James C. Williams, Case No. 2:24-cv-00960-LK
- Court: U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
- Case filed: June 28, 2024
- Judgment date: September 23, 2026
- Judgment type: Default judgment
- Damages awarded: $4,500,000
- Representative games: 30
- Damages per work: $150,000 (statutory maximum for willful infringement)
- Permanent injunction: Yes
Final Thoughts
Nintendo’s $4.5 million judgment against Archbox is a significant legal result, but it’s worth keeping the context in frame. This came through default — Williams didn’t defend himself — so it’s a legally enforceable ruling rather than a verdict reached after a contested trial. Whether Nintendo sees much of that money in practice is genuinely uncertain.
What’s less uncertain is the message Nintendo keeps sending through cases like this one. Running organized Switch piracy operations — distributing games, providing circumvention tools, building communities around unauthorized downloads — carries real legal and financial risk. The Archbox case is now part of that documented track record, sitting alongside Yuzu, Modded Hardware, and a growing list of others. If you’re following other gaming news this week, check out our coverage of the Pokémon GO Mega Squads Event or the latest from Minecraft’s Ice Caves Game Drop for something a bit less legally fraught.
