How Nintendo’s Case Against Archbox Led to a $4.5 Million Judgment

A Washington federal court awarded Nintendo $4.5 million in statutory damages against James “Archbox” Williams and granted a permanent injunction on September 23, 2026. The ruling followed Williams’s failure to respond to Nintendo’s lawsuit, so it was a default judgment—not the outcome of a contested trial. 519

The amount came from 30 games identified in Nintendo’s complaint, not a verified count of every game allegedly distributed. Nintendo sought $150,000 for each title, the statutory maximum it requested for willful copyright infringement. 1019

What Nintendo alleged about the shops and Reddit promotion

Nintendo accused Williams of creating, operating, supporting and promoting online shops offering extensive libraries of pirated Switch games. It said he had been involved with several shops since 2019 and promoted them to online communities. 1

Williams was also identified as a former moderator of r/SwitchPirates. Reporting on Nintendo’s claims says he solicited Nintendo eShop gift cards and game copies, which Nintendo alleged were used to obtain games for copying and distribution through the shops. 6715

Those details should be understood as allegations in the case, not as findings from a trial where both sides presented evidence. The sources reviewed here do not substantiate a paid-access tier or give a verified total of hundreds or thousands of games. The damages calculation instead used the 30 titles listed in Nintendo’s complaint. 1019

Why the award was $4.5 million

The calculation was $150,000 multiplied by 30 games, for a total of $4.5 million. Nintendo sought the statutory maximum for each title based on willful infringement. 1019

That figure is the court-ordered statutory award for the listed works; it should not be described as a calculation of Nintendo’s proven lost sales. Williams’s failure to defend the case meant the court entered judgment by default rather than resolving the allegations through a contested trial. 510

What the permanent injunction requires

Alongside damages, the court granted Nintendo a permanent injunction. Reporting on the order says Williams must disable access to online shops he operates or controls that offered pirated Nintendo games; the injunction also restricts distribution of pirated games and circumvention tools. 4615

The court’s order addresses the legal standard for permanent injunctive relief, which includes whether the plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm, whether money damages are adequate, how the hardships compare and whether an injunction serves the public interest. 19 The available excerpts do not provide the court’s full analysis of each factor, so the ruling’s detailed reasoning should not be overstated. A reported statement from the judge says Nintendo demonstrated that Williams promoted shops offering pirated games and circumvention software, encouraged others to contribute games, and assisted distribution despite knowing it violated copyright law. 9

The key distinction: allegations, default and judgment

The case has three separate pieces: Nintendo’s allegations about a piracy-shop network and its promotion, Williams’s failure to respond, and the court’s resulting judgment and injunction. Keeping them distinct explains both the size of the award and why the ruling should not be mistaken for a verdict after a full trial. 5919