Who is Rockstar's parent subpoenaing over the GTA 6 leaks?

Take-Two Interactive, Rockstar Games’ parent company, is seeking DMCA §512(h) subpoenas over the August 2026 GTA 6 leaks from four platform operators: Discord, Microsoft/GitHub, X Corp, and Google/YouTube. That is the legal action on the current record. It is not a copyright lawsuit against named defendants. In the available Southern District of New York materials, the Discord matter appears as In re Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., No. 1:26-mc-00422, with a supporting application and proposed subpoena on the docket; the Microsoft/GitHub demand appears in a separate subpoena document; and the X and Google/YouTube targets are reported from the expanded subpoena campaign.[1][2][3][4]

The status matters. As of the last reported verification on August 24–25, 2026, judges had signed orders directing issuance, but the clerk had not yet issued the subpoenas and Discord said it had not been served.[1][4] The documents call for production by September 4, 2026, at 10 a.m. EDT.[2][3][4] Until issuance and service occur, “subpoenaed” is too strong if it is used to mean a platform has already been served and compelled to produce account data.

The four-platform record

The applications were filed in SDNY on August 20–21, 2026, after leaked GTA 6 materials circulated through Cyberleek-linked channels. Take-Two is represented in the materials by Kirkland & Ellis and Ruttenberg IP Law, and the available record identifies SDNY judges including Andrew L. Carter Jr. and Jennifer L. Rochon in connection with the issuance orders.[1][2][4] The cleanest way to read the campaign is platform by platform, with a separate status column rather than a single blanket statement that “subpoenas are out.”

That table is intentionally less dramatic than the leak story. A signed order directing the clerk to issue a subpoena is a meaningful court event. It is not the same event as the clerk issuing the subpoena, a process server serving it, a recipient deciding whether to comply or object, and data being produced.

What has happened procedurally, and what has not

A §512(h) subpoena application has a sequence. First, the copyright owner files the application and supporting materials. Second, a judge may sign an order directing issuance. Third, the clerk issues the subpoena. Fourth, the subpoena is served on the provider. Fifth, the recipient either responds, negotiates, objects, moves to quash, or produces information. The GTA 6 leak record was still between the second and third steps at the last verified point.

The Cendali declaration submitted for Take-Two states that the requested identity information will be used only to protect Take-Two’s rights.[2] That is the statutory posture Take-Two chose: a copyright-owner application for identifying information from service providers, rather than an already-filed infringement complaint with defendants named in the caption.

This distinction is not pedantry for its own sake. A platform legal team does not treat an application, a signed order, an issued subpoena, and service as interchangeable documents. Each step changes who must act next. An order directing issuance tells the clerk what to do. An issued and served subpoena tells the recipient what is being demanded and starts the practical clock for response or challenge. If the clerk has not issued and the provider has not been served, the account holder has not yet lost data to that subpoena.

That is why the darkened public channels cannot be used as a shortcut around docket status. A GitHub 404, a disabled Telegram channel, a suspended X account, or a Cyberleek site going offline may show copyright enforcement pressure, platform moderation, voluntary takedowns, or some combination of those things. They do not establish that a §512(h) subpoena was issued, served, complied with, or used to identify a person.

The Discord demand is the one to read slowly

The Discord application is the most useful place to test the boundary of this campaign because it does not stop at three user IDs. The filing identifies Discord user IDs 532773089466122241, 1183522740725108736, and 1517326120867991592.[2] It also names servers including Ødyssey.gg and discord.gg/darkviperau, while seeking information for accounts that communicated in three servers since June 1, 2026.[2]

For the three specified IDs, a request for identifying information is unsurprising in a leak investigation. The harder question is the server-wide component. The requested categories are not limited to a display name or registration email. The Discord materials seek backend telemetry, message logs, IP access logs, email addresses, phone numbers, linked connections, and device identifiers such as MachineGuid and MSA identifiers.[2]

There are legitimate reasons a rights holder would want technical records after high-profile leaked game material appears online. Leakers rarely leave a neat chain of attribution, and reposting accounts may be created to disappear quickly. But a §512(h) subpoena is not a general discovery warrant for a community. TorrentFreak’s report flags the same problem in plainer terms: DMCA subpoenas are generally tied to alleged infringers and specific infringing material, so the lawfulness of a three-server sweep is “up for debate.”[4]

That debate is not decided merely because an issuance order was signed. If the subpoena is issued and served, Discord could comply, narrow the demand through negotiation, object, or seek court relief. Affected users may not even know their information is at issue unless the platform gives notice or a dispute brings the demand into public view. That is one reason the difference between a targeted user-ID request and a broader account sweep deserves more attention than the leak clips themselves.

The leak context is real, but it does not prove compliance

The surrounding facts explain why Take-Two moved quickly. GTA 6 is scheduled for release on November 19, 2026, and the September 4 subpoena deadline would fall after Netflix’s August 27 “Extended Look” promotion and weeks before release.[4][5] That timing makes the enforcement interest easy to understand: leaked footage, images, or build material can disrupt a tightly managed marketing calendar for one of the industry’s highest-profile games.

Visible enforcement results were already accumulating. Cyberleek’s website was reported offline on August 22, the Telegram channel was disabled for copyright, the GitHub repository appeared as a 404, and X accounts connected to the campaign were suspended.[3][4] Those facts belong in the status record. They do not answer the procedural question of whether a subpoena has issued, whether a platform has been served, or whether data has been produced.

Press reports also add useful color but should not be treated as court findings. Reports from Variety, CNET, Mashable, Kotaku, Polygon, and IGN help identify the public leak narrative and account-level reactions, including YouTube-linked coverage and denials by people named in reporting. The court record does the narrower job: it shows the legal mechanism, the platform targets, the demand categories where available, and the present procedural posture.

What a fight over unmasking could look like

There is a recent reminder that unmasking fights under copyright subpoena practice can matter, even when it is not controlling here. In the KADOKAWA v. YouTube anime-recap matter, a motion to quash was denied on July 17, 2026, and an appeal was pending in the Ninth Circuit.[6] That case involved different parties, different alleged content, and a different procedural setting. It is useful only as a comparator for the practical point that recipients or users may challenge identity demands before disclosure.

For the GTA 6 leak subpoenas, no comparable merits ruling on the Discord sweep, the Microsoft/GitHub demand, the X accounts, or the Google/YouTube channels appears in the materials reviewed. A signed issuance order should not be inflated into a ruling that every requested data category is proper, and a takedown should not be inflated into proof that identifying information changed hands.

Where the record stands now

The answer to “who is Rockstar’s parent subpoenaing over the GTA 6 leaks?” is, more precisely: Take-Two is seeking §512(h) subpoenas to Discord, Microsoft/GitHub, X Corp, and Google/YouTube. The campaign is in SDNY, tied to applications filed August 20–21, 2026, and directed toward platform and account data with a September 4, 2026, 10 a.m. EDT production deadline.[1][2][3][4]

The strongest open question is Discord, where the request reaches beyond three user IDs into identifying and technical data for accounts that communicated in three servers since June 1, 2026.[2] The strongest status limit is equally plain: as of the last verification, the orders directed issuance, but the clerk had not issued the subpoenas and Discord had not been served.[1][4] Any stronger claim should start with a fresh docket check.

References

1. In Re: Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. — CourtListener
2. ECF No. 1, In Re: Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. — CourtListener RECAP
3. Take Two Microsoft Subpoena — DocumentCloud
4. Take-Two Expands GTA 6 Leak Hunt With DMCA Subpoenas — TorrentFreak
5. GTA 6 Leaks: Rockstar Subpoenas Microsoft, Discord — Variety
6. Court Rejects Fair Use Claim, Orders YouTube to Unmask Anime Recap Channels — TorrentFreak