Netflix was sued in a California federal court on Thursday for losing the “master copy” of a Nicholas Cage film.
Filed by writer-producer Simon Afram and his U.K.-based production company, Op-Fortitude, the suit accuses Netflix of compromising future sales of “Fortitude,” an upcoming World War II spy thriller starring Nicholas Cage, by losing a copy of the movie that’d been shared for screening.
“An unencrypted master copy of the movie was in one of several drives that were stolen from Netflix’s office last month,” according to The Hollywood Reporter.
Netflix is facing a $105M lawsuit
This comes after producers claim it lost an unencrypted copy of the unreleased Nicolas Cage WWII thriller “Fortitude.”
According to Reports Netflix only offered to pay for the cost of the drive pic.twitter.com/ti4coUXY6c
— Montiero (@Mhr_Wills) July 31, 2026
Netflix has denied being at fault.
“Netflix disputes any claim that it bears the risk of loss for a film delivered without the proper industry-standard safeguards,” a company spokesperson said in a statement.
“While we do not own the rights to ‘Fortitude,’ we take content security seriously and have taken extra measures to support the filmmaker and his team. This includes conducting a thorough investigation and offering to monitor known piracy sites for any unauthorized distribution or sale,” they added.
The Hollywood Reporter notes that Netflix executives “first expressed interest in purchasing Fortitude after receiving promotional materials in December 2025.” They later requested “a working cut in June.”
At the time, the company “instructed the filmmakers to provide the key to what’s called a digital cinema package — a vehicle through which films are delivered for screening that limits unauthorized access — so the company could internally test the movie.”
On June 15, when a producer for “Fortitude” hand-delivered the drive to Netflix’s Los Angeles office, the producer said that the digital cinema package (DCP) was unencrypted and requested that the files on the drive be deleted after the movie was screened and tested.
Ten days later, the producer learned from Netflix that the drive had been stolen.
“This is a first for us,” Sean Berney, Netflix’s head of film acquisitions, wrote in a June 25 email. “Unfortunately, someone stole a good amount of drives from our office desks this past week. We’ve been working through this with our security teams to no luck. Our piracy teams are on high alert with the breach and will monitor.”
The lawsuit filed Thursday casts doubt on Netflix’s whole narrative from top to bottom.
“Since the theft, however, both Netflix and its attorneys have refused to answer any questions about the circumstances of the theft, their supposed investigation, the disposition of the DCP, or even whether Netflix had filed a police report,” the lawsuit reads. “Netflix’s attorneys, too, have attempted recharacterize the DCP as ‘missing,’ rather than ‘stolen.’”
“These obfuscations and efforts to change the narrative of the stolen DCP have caused Plaintiffs to suspect that Netflix is suppressing, hiding, and potentially spoliating information and evidence that is highly relevant to the location, disposition, and value of Plaintiffs’ unique and tremendously valuable asset,” the lawsuit continues.
Netflix has, for its part, alleged that it stopped sharing information about the investigation into the theft after a law firm representing Afram tried to “extort money” by demanding $165 million for the movie.
In his suit, Afram maintains that the theft that occurred under Netflix’s watch has made it significantly harder to sell the movie.
“Plaintiffs cannot, consistent with their legal, professional, and ethical obligations, market the Film without disclosing the theft and the resulting loss of exclusive control over the Film,” the suit reads. “Any such disclosure necessarily diminishes the Film’s value and negotiating leverage with prospective purchasers.”
The suit goes on to blame Netflix’s negligence for the problems Afram’s company is facing.
“Plaintiffs were compelled to temporarily pause their marketing and sales of the Film, despite there being tremendous interest from multiple studios and distributors, both domestic and foreign,” the suit reads.
“The delay caused by pausing sales efforts results in lost opportunities for Plaintiffs, impairment of Plaintiffs’ negotiation leverage, and disruption of the Film’s release strategy and qualification for awards in this calendar year,” it continues.
