Ariana Grande Granted Permission to Issue Expedited Subpoenas to Reveal Hacker Identities
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
A Los Angeles judge has finalised a ruling granting Ariana Grande permission to issue expedited subpoenas aimed at unmasking anonymous hackers accused of leaking her unreleased songs and behind-the-scenes footage. Judge Mark H. Epstein waived the usual 16-day waiting period, finding "good cause" and noting that notice was pointless since the defendants' identities remain unknown. The order allows Grande's legal team to move quickly to trace the culprits before login and account data needed to identify them could be lost, closing out this phase of her legal action against the hackers.
Grande filed the underlying lawsuit on 27 July against unnamed "John Does" over phishing and hacking schemes that targeted the personal accounts of photographers and producers who worked with her, with stolen material allegedly sold on for large sums. Her lawyers say the pattern of leaks stretches back roughly 15 years, citing one instance in 2023 alone in which hackers accessed and leaked 45 of her unreleased songs. With the subpoena order now approved, attention shifts to whether the expedited discovery process succeeds in identifying those responsible.
- Judge lets Ariana Grande subpoena data to identify anonymous hackers.
- 16-day notice period waived since defendants are unidentifiable.
- Lawsuit alleges 15 years of leaks, including 45 songs stolen in 2023.
New here? Start with this
Ariana Grande, the American singer and actor, has taken legal action after unreleased songs, video footage and other private material connected to her recording sessions were leaked online over a period of years. The material is alleged to have been obtained by anonymous hackers, sometimes through phishing schemes targeting people who worked closely with her, such as photographers and producers, and then sold on for significant sums.
Because the people responsible have not been identified, Grande's legal team cannot name them directly and has instead filed suit against unknown "John Does". A subpoena is a legal order requiring a person or company, such as a technology or social media firm, to hand over information, in this case likely account details that could help establish who was behind the leaks.
The case matters because it touches on the wider problem of hacking and leaked material affecting public figures, and on how courts can act against anonymous online offenders when normal notification procedures do not apply. Any information gathered through the subpoenas would be a step towards identifying those responsible, though it does not itself amount to a finding of guilt.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the order argue that Ariana Grande is the victim of a clear pattern of criminal conduct – phishing and hacking – rather than a case involving contested speech or opinion, so the usual caution about unmasking anonymous parties is less relevant here. They note that digital evidence such as login and subscriber records can be deleted or become unavailable quickly, so waiting the standard 16 days risks losing the very data needed to identify the culprits, and that courts have long recognised expedited discovery as a legitimate tool when notice to unknown defendants is impossible and real, ongoing harm is being documented. For this camp, protecting artists, photographers and producers from theft and extortion-like leaks is a straightforward application of the law, not a novel expansion of it.
The case against
Sceptics of expedited, ex parte unmasking orders argue that any process allowing subpoenas before defendants can contest them warrants caution, precisely because it operates without an adversarial check at the crucial early stage. They point out that identifying information tied to an account or IP address does not always correspond to the actual wrongdoer, raising the risk that innocent third parties are swept up in the process or have their data exposed before any wrongdoing is proven. More broadly, civil liberties advocates worry that each expansion of low-barrier expedited discovery, even in sympathetic cases, normalises a lighter evidentiary threshold for compelling platforms to unmask anonymous users, which could later be invoked in disputes with weaker justification or chilling effects on legitimate anonymous speech.
More coverage
Americas Cybersecurity Entertainment Music Research Science Technology World