Discord Says It Has Not Been Served in the GTA 6 Case

Discord has not been served with Take-Two's subpoena. That is not our inference, it is Discord's own on-record statement, and it changes how the last week of coverage should be read. The second thing worth knowing is what the demand actually covers. The Microsoft and Discord subpoenas do not ask only about a handful of named personas. They ask for identifying information on every account that is or was a member of three named Discord servers, going back to 1 June 2026. That is the finding, and everything else in this piece is the qualification that belongs around it. What did Discord say? CONFIRMED at the primary source. Our researcher verified this at X's own syndication endpoint, which returns the account handle, display name, UTC timestamp and full post text, so this is a real post and quotable. Ryan K. Rigney, who works in marketing at Discord, at 2026-08-24T18:11:21Z, verbatim: I can share an update on this: Discord has not yet been served with a subpoena from Take Two. When we do, we'll evaluate the validity and scope before responding. CONFIRMED at the same endpoint. Scott Van Vliet, Xbox CTO, at 2026-08-21T20:53:03Z, verbatim: We are working closely with Take-Two and Rockstar Games to support efforts to protect creative works and intellectual property. We did not obtain Microsoft's corporate statement at source, so we are not quoting one. The Van Vliet post is what we have and it is what we are attributing. Why does "not yet served" matter? This is the legal nuance that most aggregation has skipped, and it is the spine of the story. Filing a subpoena and serving it are different steps. A court can authorise a subpoena and a clerk can issue it, and none of that puts any obligation on the recipient until the recipient is formally served. Until then there is nothing to comply with, nothing to object to and no clock running. Eurogamer, by Sherif Saed at 2026-08-25T08:39:48Z, fetched by us at HTTP 200 and 255,691 bytes, makes the same point, verbatim: "It's worth noting that filing a subpoena is separate to actually serving a party with one, and that companies are not required to respond to a subpoena until they have been formally served it." So the accurate description of where this stands, as of today, is that a court has authorised subpoenas, and at least one intended recipient says it has not received one. Coverage framing this as "Discord is handing over user data" is describing a step that has not happened. Rigney's second sentence is also worth reading closely. "We'll evaluate the validity and scope before responding" is a company reserving its position on both whether the subpoena is good and how wide it is. That is normal and it is not a promise to fight anything. What does the demand actually cover? CONFIRMED from the filings themselves. Our researcher read all four Attachment A documents at source. Sizes as fetched, all HTTP 200: Microsoft 835,534 bytes, Discord 866,283 bytes, Google 537,926 bytes, X Corp. 517,995 bytes. The Microsoft and Discord attachments ask for identifying information on all user accounts that are or were members of three named Discord servers, for the period from 1 June 2026 to the present. Not the accounts alleged to have done something. The membership. The categories demanded for those accounts, given here as categories rather than as a target list: account ID registration email address registration and last-login IP addresses phone number linked connections, such as Google and Xbox accounts associated device identifiers original message logs IP access logs registration timestamps backend telemetry Microsoft is additionally asked for content related to the game, to Rockstar or to the named persona from those users' OneDrive accounts, and for Microsoft's own internal investigative records. Every image on this page is official Rockstar material. Nothing on this page comes from leaked material, and we did not view any. What we are redacting, and why The attachments name three Discord servers and give guild IDs. They also name account handles. We are printing none of it, and we want to be explicit about the reasoning rather than leaving you to guess. A court filing is a public record and its contents are fair to report. Republishing the identifiers inside it does something different from reporting. It produces a ready-made target list. Being in a Discord server is not an accusation, nobody named in any of these documents has been accused of anything by anybody, and we are not going to help build a directory of people for others to go at. Eurogamer printed the server names. We are not following them on that, and we say so plainly rather than pretending the information is unobtainable. One of the three servers is the community server of a well-known GTA streamer. That fact matters to the story, because it tells you the demand reaches into ordinary community spaces rather than being confined to places built around leaked material. The name does not add anything to your understanding and we are leaving it out. The persona name already in wide public circulation is used bare in our coverage, with no identifiers attached to it, because we have covered it before and it is already public. We do not name or characterise any private individual as the leaker. How many people could this cover? REPORTED, Eurogamer, verbatim: "Some Discord users fear the scope of the subpoena is so broad it potentially affects all users of the Discord servers where the leaks circulated, which number in the hundreds of thousands." REPORTED, Malwarebytes privacy desk, by Danny Bradbury at 2026-08-25T10:01:08Z, fetched at HTTP 200 and 326,225 bytes, verbatim: "potentially hundreds or thousands of people with no known connection to the leaks could have identifying information handed over to Take-Two as part of its investigation." Those are two estimates from two outlets, and we are labelling them as such rather than adopting either. Neither Discord nor Take-Two has published a number, and we cannot count the membership of servers we are not going to name. CONFIRMED by us, from the AO 88B form fields: the Microsoft and Discord compliance date is 4 September 2026 at 10:00am. If service happens, that is the date on the paper. The contrast that makes the scope legible CONFIRMED. The Google and X Corp. attachments demand the same categories of per-account data. They are limited to three named personas each. No bulk membership clause. No cloud storage clause. DemandMicrosoft and DiscordGoogle and X Corp. Per-account identifying datayesyes Scope of accountsevery member of three named servers since 1 June 2026three named personas each Device and telemetry recordsyesserver metadata and telemetry Cloud storage contentsyes, Microsoft only, filtered by subjectno Internal investigation recordsyes, Microsoft onlyno Same petitioner, same week, two very different widths. We present that as the contrast it is. It is not a finding of impropriety, and a narrower sibling document does not establish that the wider one is unlawful. It does establish that a tighter version of the same demand was drafted by the same client in the same fortnight. What has not happened No court has ruled on the scope of any of these demands. The 21 August orders are one-page grants that do not discuss scope at all. No motion to quash has been filed. We confirmed that today by three independent search methods, including SDNY's own live PACER feed at HTTP 200 and 1,083,906 bytes covering 2,327 items to 26 August 01:00 GMT. No third party has intervened. Take-Two and Rockstar have issued no statement on any of this. IGN reported asking for comment. Neither company has commented, which is a different thing from refusing to. Discord says it has not been served. Nobody has published anything indicating that any of the four recipients has produced any data. The reading that this demand is wider than section 512(h) authorises is an argument. It is an argument a recipient could make, or an affected user could make, on a motion to quash. Presented as an argument it is a strong one and worth understanding. Presented as a finding it would be wrong, and nobody has made that finding. What is and is not established Confirmed at the primary source: Ryan K. Rigney of Discord posted at 2026-08-24T18:11:21Z that Discord "has not yet been served with a subpoena from Take Two" and that it will "evaluate the validity and scope before responding". Confirmed at the primary source: Scott Van Vliet, Xbox CTO, posted at 2026-08-21T20:53:03Z that Microsoft is "working closely with Take-Two and Rockstar Games to support efforts to protect creative works and intellectual property". Not obtained: Microsoft's corporate statement. We did not reach it at source and we do not quote one. Confirmed (Eurogamer, Sherif Saed, 2026-08-25T08:39:48Z, HTTP 200 at 255,691 bytes): filing a subpoena is separate from serving it, and a company is not required to respond until formally served. Confirmed from the filings (all HTTP 200; Microsoft 835,534 bytes, Discord 866,283 bytes, Google 537,926 bytes, X Corp. 517,995 bytes): the Microsoft and Discord attachments seek identifying information on all accounts that are or were members of three named servers from 1 June 2026 to the present, across the categories listed above. Confirmed: Microsoft is additionally asked for OneDrive content related to the game, Rockstar or the named persona, and for its own internal investigative records. Confirmed: the Google and X Corp. attachments seek the same categories but are limited to three named personas each, with no bulk membership clause and no cloud storage clause. Confirmed by us: the Microsoft and Discord compliance date is 4 September 2026 at 10:00am, read off the AO 88B form fields. Reported, Eurogamer: that users fear the scope potentially affects all members of the servers concerned, "which number in the hundreds of thousands". Reported, Malwarebytes (Danny Bradbury, 2026-08-25T10:01:08Z, HTTP 200 at 326,225 bytes): that "hundreds or thousands of people with no known connection to the leaks" could have identifying information handed over. An argument, not a finding: that the demand exceeds what section 512(h) authorises. No court has ruled on scope and the 21 August orders do not discuss it. Confirmed negative: no motion to quash, no third-party intervention, and no public indication that any recipient has produced any data. Confirmed negative: Take-Two and Rockstar have issued no statement. Neither has commented, which is not the same as refusing to. Editorial policy: we print no server names, no guild IDs, no account identifiers and no handles. Being in a server is not an accusation and we are not building anybody a target list. Explicitly not claimed: that any member of any named server did anything, and that any identified individual is responsible for the leak. A subpoena is a request for records and contains no finding about anybody. If any of the four recipients is served, objects, negotiates or produces, and any of that reaches the public record, we will report it with the document shown on our news page. Our servers list is where to go if you would rather read about somewhere to play.