Take-Two Filed Four GTA 6 Leak Subpoena Requests, Not Two

Take-Two Interactive filed four DMCA subpoena requests over the GTA 6 leak, not two. Every outlet that covered this reported the Microsoft filing and the Discord filing. Two more went in the following day, aimed at Google over YouTube and at X Corp, and they have gone essentially unreported. We downloaded and read all four ourselves. The second thing worth getting right at the top: none of the four had been issued as of August 23. They are requests to the Clerk of the court, each with the proposed subpoena attached as Exhibit A. "Requested" is the accurate verb. "Issued" is not, and a great deal of coverage this week has used it anyway. What are the four GTA 6 leak subpoena requests? CONFIRMED, re-verified at the primary source on August 24, 2026. We pulled all four Document 1 filings from CourtListener's RECAP document store, all HTTP 200, and read them. Every one is three pages, every one is in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and every one invokes 17 U.S.C. section 512(h), the DMCA subpoena provision. CaseRecipientFiledBytesMD5 1:26-mc-00421Microsoft Corporation, as service provider of GitHub08/20/26348,011bd1de8ed8b68865782922dd26a036d6b 1:26-mc-00422Discord, Inc.08/20/26362,227f5035a7fc7ccee045aae9ea912292b53 1:26-mc-00425Google LLC, for YouTube08/21/26226,577c2bd6c8983a1843cd7293c8e4dcc30bd 1:26-mc-00426X Corp.08/21/26330,717284b40a85ece3ef709ac8e74635f7e17 The ECF header stamp printed across the top of every page independently confirms the case number, the filing date and the page count, so the metadata and the document agree with each other. Every one of the four is titled in the same form: "PETITIONER TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.'S REQUEST TO THE CLERK FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUBPOENA TO" the relevant party. Have the GTA 6 subpoenas actually been issued? No. CONFIRMED. TorrentFreak's Ernesto Van der Sar reported on August 23, and we fetched the piece ourselves at HTTP 200. Verbatim: "As it stands, none of the four subpoenas has been issued. Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. and Judge Jennifer L. Rochon each signed an order directing the clerk to act, but the clerk has not yet done so." That matches what is physically in the documents we read. Each filing states that the proposed subpoena "is attached hereto as Exhibit A". A proposed subpoena attached to a request is a draft asking the clerk to sign and send it. Until the clerk acts, nothing has been served on anybody and nobody owes Take-Two an answer. The two filings nobody covered CONFIRMED, editor re-verified. Case 425 is directed at Google over YouTube. Its own language, verbatim: "The DMCA Subpoena is directed to Google LLC, an online hosting service provider that provides the YouTube platform and related services (hereinafter "YouTube")." The filing identifies one YouTube video. We are not printing the video ID. CONFIRMED, editor re-verified. Case 426 is directed at X Corp. Verbatim, with our redaction marked: "The DMCA Subpoena is directed to X Corp., the service provider of an account with the username [redacted by us]." Three specific post URLs are listed in the filing. We are not printing the handle and we are not printing the URLs. Those redactions are our standing policy. The filings are useful to a reader as evidence of who Take-Two is going after and how. Reprinting the addresses would turn a court document into a directory. For completeness on the two that were covered, case 421 says of GitHub, verbatim: "Github is the service provider of a website with the URL [redacted by us] to which the infringing content was posted." And on what is at stake: "This content infringes copyrights held by Take-Two for GRAND THEFT AUTO VI, proprietary software owned by Take-Two." Every image on this page is an official Rockstar press screenshot. Nothing here is taken from leaked material, and we did not view any. Two law firms, filed a day apart CONFIRMED from the filings themselves. The Microsoft and Discord requests carry Dale M. Cendali and Joshua L. Simmons of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 601 Lexington Avenue, New York. The Google and X requests carry Rachel Bandli of Ruttenberg IP Law, A Professional Corporation, 445 Hamilton Ave, 11th Fl, White Plains, NY. TorrentFreak reached the same split independently, verbatim: "The Discord and Microsoft DMCA subpoena requests were filed by law firm Kirkland & Ellis." And on the other pair: "These filings came from a different law firm, Ruttenberg IP Law, and are more narrowly targeted." A forensic detail underneath that, which we found ourselves. The Kirkland documents are PDF version 1.7 and have the case number typed into the caption. The Ruttenberg documents are PDF version 1.5 and left the case number blank for the clerk to stamp in. Two firms, two document pipelines, filed a day apart. The paperwork corroborates the split without anybody having to say so. What Take-Two is asking Microsoft for REPORTED (VGC, Dave Aubrey, August 21), not editor re-verified. The Microsoft ask is quoted as covering "all internal Microsoft business records and investigative records associated with Microsoft's internal investigation of the 'cyberleek' persona sufficient to identify the user(s)." That wording describes Microsoft as having run an internal investigation of its own. We have not confirmed that independently and neither, so far as we can tell, has anybody else. REPORTED (Kotaku, Ethan Gach, August 21), and we are deliberately not upgrading it. A September 4, 2026 compliance deadline has been widely repeated. That deadline lives in the Exhibit A subpoenas, which are not inside the Document 1 PDFs we read, so we cannot confirm the date from the primary source. It is probably right. We just have not seen it. Rockstar and Take-Two have said nothing CONFIRMED NEGATIVE. Neither company has made a public statement about the 2026 leak. NBC News, August 20: "Rockstar and Take-Two Interactive, its parent company, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Neither has issued a public statement regarding the purported hack." Forbes' Paul Tassi, August 23: "Rockstar or Take-Two have made no public comment, nor have they responded to my requests." This matters because search engines are currently serving Rockstar's 2022 "network intrusion" statement as though it were a response to this week's events. It is four years old and belongs to a different incident. If you see it dated 2026 anywhere, that page is wrong. How we got the documents, and one thing we got wrong on the way CourtListener's own docket pages returned HTTP 403 to us and its search API rate-limited us, so we went to the RECAP document store directly and pulled the PDFs. That is why this piece quotes documents rather than dockets, and why we are printing byte counts and MD5 hashes: they are the proof that we held the files. A correction about our own process, since it explains how docket numbers get misreported. While pulling these we picked up a nearby SDNY docket from the same week, 1:26-cv-07125, assuming it was related. It turned out to be an unrelated ADA website-accessibility class action against a jewellery retailer. We checked it and discarded it. Adjacent case numbers filed in the same district in the same week look like a cluster and usually are not one. What is and is not established Confirmed (editor re-verified at the primary source, August 24, 2026): four DMCA subpoena requests exist, at 1:26-mc-00421 (Microsoft, for GitHub), 1:26-mc-00422 (Discord), 1:26-mc-00425 (Google, for YouTube) and 1:26-mc-00426 (X Corp.), all three pages, all in the Southern District of New York, all invoking 17 U.S.C. section 512(h). Byte counts and MD5 hashes are printed above. Confirmed (editor re-verified): every filing is titled as a "REQUEST TO THE CLERK FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUBPOENA", with the proposed subpoena attached as Exhibit A. That is why "requested" is accurate and "issued" is not. Confirmed (editor re-verified at TorrentFreak, Ernesto Van der Sar, August 23): none of the four subpoenas had been issued. Two judges signed orders directing the clerk to act and the clerk had not yet done so. Confirmed (editor, from the filings): the counsel split between Kirkland & Ellis on 421 and 422 and Ruttenberg IP Law on 425 and 426, corroborated by two different PDF versions and two different caption habits. Reported (VGC, Dave Aubrey, August 21): the verbatim Microsoft ask covering internal business and investigative records tied to the named persona. We did not re-verify it, and the claim that Microsoft ran an internal investigation rests on that wording alone. Reported (Kotaku, Ethan Gach, August 21): a September 4, 2026 compliance deadline. It sits in the Exhibit A subpoenas, which we did not obtain, so it is not confirmed here. Confirmed negative: Rockstar and Take-Two have issued no public statement on the 2026 leak, per NBC News on August 20 and Forbes on August 23. Not obtained: the Exhibit A subpoenas themselves, and CourtListener's docket pages, which returned HTTP 403. Editorial policy: the filings contain a GitHub repository URL, an X handle, a YouTube video ID and Discord identifiers. None of them appears on this page. Explicitly not claimed: that anyone named in these documents did anything. A subpoena request is a demand for records, not a finding. We will re-pull all four dockets when the clerk acts and publish what changed on our news page. If you would rather spend the wait somewhere useful, our servers list is the place to start.