The X Corp Order in the GTA 6 Case Is Free to Read Now, and the Docket Still Hides It

The order granting Take-Two's subpoena to X Corp. came off the PACER paywall between Tuesday and this morning. We have now read it, and it is one page long. The docket, meanwhile, still tells you nothing about it at all. That combination is worth twenty minutes of anyone's time. The decision in one of the four GTA 6 subpoena matters is public, free, and effectively invisible unless you know to go looking for the PDF rather than the docket entry. What does the X Corp subpoena order say? CONFIRMED, editor-verified. We pulled the document at HTTP 200, 121,884 bytes, one page. The ECF stamp across the top reads "Case 1:26-mc-00426-AT Document 5 Filed 08/24/26 Page 1 of 1". Here is the operative text, verbatim: This matter comes before the Court upon the ex parte application of petitioner Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. along with the Declaration of Rachel Bandli and supporting documents for the signing of a Subpoena directing X Corp. to produce the identity of entities or persons believed to be infringing on the copyright of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. Having considered the Declaration and all documents submitted in support of the instant application, the Court finds good reason to issue an order directing the clerk to issue said subpoena and it is therefore: ORDERED that the clerk of this Court shall issue the Subpoena for X Corp. as sought by the petitioner. It is dated 24 August 2026 and captioned "ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.'S REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA TO X CORP." Note the phrase "ex parte". Nobody was there to argue the other side. That is normal for a section 512(h) application and it is worth stating, because it explains how a decision of this consequence fits on a single page. Who signed it? We are not going to tell you, because the document does not. The signature on the page is a graphic and no typed judge name survives in the PDF's text layer. What we can say is that the case number carries the suffix "-AT" and the docket assigns 1:26-mc-00426 to Judge Analisa Torres. That is the attribution the record supports. Asserting whose hand was on the pen would be a step past what we actually read. Why can you not see this on the docket? CONFIRMED, and this is the part that should bother anyone who follows court records. CourtListener carries no docket text at all for entry 5 in 1:26-mc-00426. The description field is empty. Compare that with the parallel Google matter, where the clerk's docket text runs to a full paragraph and reproduces the judge's endorsement almost in its entirety. In 426 the docket shows that a document exists and shows nothing about what it decided. A reader working from the docket alone would know only that something was filed on 24 August. The decision is public. It is free. And it is legible only to somebody who goes and fetches a PDF whose path is not linked from the page most people would read. Every image on this page is official Rockstar material. Nothing on this page comes from leaked material, and we did not view any. What do the GTA 6 subpoenas actually demand? CONFIRMED. We read Attachment A in both the Google and X matters, at HTTP 200 and 537,926 bytes and HTTP 200 and 517,995 bytes respectively. Both are AO 88B Rule 45 forms, both are attorney-issued rather than judge-issued, and both carry a return date of 09/08/2026 at 10:00. The per-account demand is identical in both, verbatim: account ID, backend server metadata or telemetry records, original message logs, IP access logs, email addresses, phone numbers, connected accounts, registration timestamps, linked connections (social media, websites, etc.), and any associated device identifiers (MachineGuid/MSA) The window is 1 June 2026 to the present. The service addresses are printable and we print them: Google LLC c/o Corporation Service Company, 80 State Street, Albany, NY 12207, and X Corp. c/o United Agent Group Inc., 600 Mamaroneck Ave. #400, Harrison, NY 10528. What we are withholding, and why. The same attachment names three YouTube personas and a specific video URL. None of them appears on this page. A court filing is a public record and its contents are fair to report, and reprinting the identifiers inside it does something different from reporting: it hands a ready-made target list to anybody looking for one. Nobody named in these documents has been sued, charged or found liable of anything. Describing the demand by category tells you everything you need in order to judge how broad it is. Why do two of the four orders carry the wrong caption? CONFIRMED, and it is a small thing that tells you how the paperwork was assembled. We read all three available signed orders. MatterRecipientCaption on the signed orderWhat the body does 1:26-mc-00421Microsoft, for GitHub[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.'S RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENTgrants a subpoena 1:26-mc-00422Discord[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.'S RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENTgrants a subpoena 1:26-mc-00426X Corp.ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.'S REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA TO X CORP.grants a subpoena A Rule 7.1 disclosure statement is a corporate ownership declaration. Nobody grants one. It is simply filed. The two orders captioned that way grant a subpoena in their bodies, and both judges signed the page as drafted with the word "[PROPOSED]" still on it. The Microsoft order came to us at HTTP 200 and 296,709 bytes. The Discord order, at HTTP 200 and 114,225 bytes, is an image-only scan with no text layer, so we read it visually at 150 dpi. The X Corp order is captioned correctly. Two law firms, two patterns CONFIRMED. The Microsoft and Discord matters were filed by Kirkland & Ellis, with Dale M. Cendali on the papers. The Google and X Corp matters were filed by Ruttenberg IP Law, with Rachel Bandli on the papers, at 445 Hamilton Ave., 11th Fl., White Plains, NY 10601. The caption defect appears in both Kirkland matters and in neither Ruttenberg one. That is the pattern, and we are going to stop there. We do not know why the work was split between two firms, and we are not going to build a theory about drafting quality out of a sample of four documents filed in the same week. Has anyone moved to quash? CONFIRMED NEGATIVE, editor-verified. We queried the CourtListener v4 search API with q="DMCA Subpoena", court=nysd, filed_after=2026-08-18 and type=r. It returned HTTP 200 at 21,435 bytes with a count of exactly 4. There is no fifth matter. There is no motion to quash. And no appearance by Microsoft, Discord, Google or X Corp shows on any of the four dockets. Providers frequently narrow demands like these in correspondence that never reaches a docket, so silence on the record is not evidence that nothing is happening. It is evidence that nothing has happened in public. What is and is not established Confirmed, editor-verified, HTTP 200 at 121,884 bytes: the one-page order in 1:26-mc-00426, filed 24 August 2026, directs the clerk to issue the subpoena to X Corp. as sought by the petitioner. Its operative text is quoted verbatim above. Confirmed: the document was PACER-paywalled on 25 August and is free now. We do not know exactly when it was released, only that it is available today. Not asserted: whose hand signed it. The signature is a graphic and no typed name survives in the text layer. The case suffix "-AT" and the docket assignment point to Judge Analisa Torres. Confirmed: CourtListener carries no docket text for entry 5 in 426. The description field is empty and the decision is visible only in the PDF. Confirmed: the Google and X subpoenas are AO 88B Rule 45 forms, attorney-issued, return date 09/08/2026 at 10:00, covering 1 June 2026 to the present, demanding the per-account data set quoted verbatim above. Google exhibit HTTP 200 at 537,926 bytes, X exhibit HTTP 200 at 517,995 bytes. Confirmed: the Microsoft order (HTTP 200, 296,709 bytes) and the Discord order (HTTP 200, 114,225 bytes, image-only, read visually at 150 dpi) are both captioned as granting a Rule 7.1 disclosure statement while their bodies grant a subpoena. The X Corp order is captioned correctly. Confirmed: 421 and 422 were filed by Kirkland & Ellis, 425 and 426 by Ruttenberg IP Law. The caption defect appears only in the Kirkland pair. We report the pattern and offer no theory about why the work was split. Confirmed negative, editor-verified: the CourtListener v4 search API returns a count of 4 for DMCA subpoena matters in this district since 18 August. No fifth matter, no motion to quash, no appearance by any recipient. Editorial policy: the attachments name three YouTube personas and a video URL. None appears on this page, because republishing them would turn a court record into a target list. Explicitly not claimed: that anybody infringed anything. These are records demands supported by a sworn declaration, and the material is described here as allegedly infringing. No court has found any person liable. The compliance date on both subpoenas is 8 September. We will report whatever reaches the public record before then on our news page, and if you want somewhere better to be in the meantime, our servers list is a good start.