{"id":1680121,"date":"2026-09-01T03:23:56","date_gmt":"2026-09-01T03:23:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/h4ehXVt5yqZDzoPjmz5gq5"},"modified":"2026-09-01T03:23:56","modified_gmt":"2026-09-01T03:23:56","slug":"with-gta-6-leaker-hunt-rapidly-evolving-take-two-asks-court-to-keep-latest-subpoena-request-sealed-to-avoid-tipping-off-leakers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/arcader.org\/news\/with-gta-6-leaker-hunt-rapidly-evolving-take-two-asks-court-to-keep-latest-subpoena-request-sealed-to-avoid-tipping-off-leakers\/","title":{"rendered":"With GTA 6 leaker hunt ‘rapidly evolving,’ Take-Two asks court to keep latest subpoena request sealed to avoid tipping off leakers"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The Grand Theft Auto 6<\/a> leak party is presumably over: The Netflix showcase has wrapped<\/a>, and Cyberleek has made off with more than $200,000<\/a> in a perfectly predictable yet somehow still very lucrative rug pull. I imagine the leaker is now looking for a good hole to hide in, and for their sake it better be a deep one because it sounds like Take-Two’s hunt is zeroing in on something.<\/p>\n

Take-Two Interactive filed subpoena requests with Discord and Microsoft<\/a> shortly after the GTA 6 leaks began to flow, seeking “business records and investigative records associated with Microsoft\u2019s internal investigation of the ‘cyberleek’ persona sufficient to identify the user(s),” as well as detailed information on potentially thousands of users<\/a> who interacted with certain Discord servers. Subsequent subpoenas seeking similar information were filed with X and YouTube.<\/p>\n

Those requests were very broad, but a newer filing<\/a> made on August 28 (via TorrentFreak<\/a>) is much narrower: “Take-Two has identified one additional Discord user and obtained additional identifying information for a previously identified Discord user, as well as additional information concerning the community servers identified in its prior subpoena for which it now seeks more targeted information. These additional accounts and server are believed to be involved in the same infringing activity as that described in Take-Two’s first request.”<\/p>\n

A footnote adds that “Take-Two’s investigation of the infringement at issue is rapidly evolving and ongoing,” and says the information sought by this subpoena is different from what was covered in the first, “and provides additional clarifying information regarding one of the user IDs specified in the first subpoena.”<\/p>\n

Also interesting is that while previous subpoena filings were public, the details in this one are sealed. A motion<\/a> requesting the seal remain intact argues that the filing in question is “not subject to the presumption of public access,” and says that even if it was, Take-Two’s “countervailing interests” would take precedence because the document “reveals highly sensitive, confidential information about an ongoing investigation into copyright infringement and the misappropriation of Take-Two\u2019s confidential information.”<\/p>\n

“Public disclosure of this information could compromise Take-Two’s ongoing investigation and even tip off the alleged infringers as to the nature and progress of Take-Two’s investigation and information Take-Two has gathered about the infringement, creating a substantial risk that the infringers will delete, destroy, or otherwise conceal evidence of their infringing activities, and\/or take further steps to evade identification.”<\/p>\n

At this point, a ruling on the request to keep the document sealed hasn’t been made, and the subpoena itself hasn’t been issued.<\/p>\n

Also on August 28, Take-Two withdrew<\/a> its request for a DMCA subpoena filing with Google, repeating that the situation “has been (and is) evolving rapidly as new information becomes available.”<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n