What a DMCA subpoena means here
A DMCA subpoena is a mechanism for seeking identifying information tied to alleged infringement. It is not a trial, a judgment or a public declaration that every allegation has been proved.
Four applications, not one
The most common error in coverage of this case is compression. There was no single court moment. The docket shows four separate miscellaneous applications filed in the Southern District of New York across two days, each assigned to a different judge, with three grants and one withdrawal.
- Microsoft. Filed August 20, granted August 21.
- Discord. Filed August 20, granted August 21, with a second application granted August 31.
- X Corp. Filed August 21, granted August 24.
- Google. Filed August 21, then withdrawn by the petitioner on August 28. The case closed on August 31.
That last one is the finding most coverage skipped. In a memo endorsement, the judge questioned how the petitioner had identified the accounts it wanted to subpoena and what basis it had for linking them to the posting, and directed it to supplement the application. The petitioner's answer was not to supplement but to withdraw, stating that it no longer needed the particular information requested.
What the reported requests seek
Scope details come from outlets that reviewed the filings rather than from the filed exhibits, so treat this list as reported, not certified:
- Account and registration details associated with the Cyberleek persona.
- Login IP records and linked account information.
- Windows device identifiers described in reporting as MachineGuid and MSA values, plus Microsoft's internal investigative records into the persona.
- OneDrive material referencing GTA, Rockstar or Cyberleek, where covered by the request.
- For Discord, records for every account that communicated in named servers over a multi-month window — a sweep that reaches bystanders, not only alleged infringers.
Why this is a bigger story than a takedown
Copyright removals happen at the content layer. A subpoena moves the investigation toward account metadata and infrastructure. That makes the story more consequential for bystanders whose usernames or server memberships are swept into the request.
The service dispute nobody resolved
Two statements about the same document do not agree. A filing from the petitioner's side describes the first Discord subpoena as issued on August 21 and promptly served. Discord's own public position, stated days later, was that it had not yet been served. Both cannot be true, and no later record reviewed by this desk explains which one is right.
This matters because a subpoena that was not served is not a subpoena that has been assessed, challenged or complied with. It also means the September 4 production date may have applied to a shorter list than headlines assumed.
What happened after the production date
Nothing public. No docket activity was identified in any of the four applications after the end of August, and no filing, platform statement or court order reviewed by this desk confirms that Microsoft or Discord produced records on September 4.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of refusal here. Productions made under this mechanism go to the requester and are not docketed, so a quiet record proves neither compliance nor defiance. What can be said is that no identification has followed in public.
Reporting on the second Discord application says the petitioner described identifying one additional user and obtaining further identifying information about a previously identified one, with the document-request list sealed. Read plainly, that suggests a small number of accounts under scrutiny — and it still names nobody.
The takedown campaign reached past the leak
One under-reported thread deserves to sit beside the subpoenas. A journalist's own account describes an X takedown notice removing a post that contained nothing but the public court orders, and freezing the account, with the notice asserting a trademark claim on a copyright form. The same notice is described as listing hundreds of posts in bulk, including posts using a press screenshot the publisher distributes for media use, and it reportedly reached a major retailer over an official asset.
The removal was later reversed and the material restored, without explanation. Whatever one concludes about the leak, the enforcement net caught accounts that had published nothing infringing, which is exactly why the scope of these requests is worth reading closely rather than summarising as “Take-Two is hunting the leaker”.
Why the October leak does not change the legal picture
A new upload does not create a new legal finding. It does two things: it gives investigators fresher distribution points, and it makes the “the operation has been shut down” reading harder to sustain. Take-Two did not respond to a request for comment on the October 8 drop, and no new court action tied to it has been reported.
One clarification worth stating plainly, because aggregators blend the two cases: the person prosecuted over the 2022 GTA VI leaks is a different individual, unconnected to this campaign. Nothing in that case identifies the Cyberleek operator.
Sources / PC Gamer, Aug 25, 2026 · TorrentFreak, Aug 26, 2026 · Game File, Aug 27, 2026 · PCMag, Oct 8, 2026 · SDNY dockets for the four applications
READ THE SERVICE DISPUTE REPORT -> READ THE FIRST-PERSON TAKEDOWN ACCOUNT -> CHECK THE MICROSOFT DOCKET ->For the broader story, return to the GTA 6 leaks master file, read the current status ledger, or read who Cyberleek might be without the doxxing spiral.