2012 was a good year for Prenda Law. The law firm raked in at least $1.9 million by sending thousands of letters alleging that Internet users had illegally downloaded pornographic films.

In August of that year, Prenda was feeling so good about itself that it made a particularly bold move. The law firm actually sued two of the nation's biggest Internet service providers, AT&T and Comcast, frustrated that the ISPs wouldn't hand over subpoenas seeking the identities of some 6,600 people. The bizarrely worded complaint alleged that the ISPs had "aided and abetted" hackers who gained entry to porn websites owned by Lightspeed Media, an adult content company that was then a Prenda client.

But it was really all about discovery—that is, getting the names of users. As AT&T's lawyer explained to the judge:

As elsewhere, Lightspeed and its attorneys would have this Court act as the instrument for its collection activity on a grand scale without regard to whether Lightspeed has asserted any viable claims, and without regard to the substantive and procedural rights of the ISPs or their subscribers… Presumably, Lightspeed is merely searching for any sort of relief that could result in the collection of more settlements before any judicial scrutiny and adversarial debate in this Court.

Even back then, close Prenda watchers saw a lawsuit against such large targets ending badly. Suing AT&T and Comcast was a "strategic blunder," as Prenda was provoking "sleeping giants" who really didn't have a dog in the fight until that point, noted Ars writer Tim Lee.

The move showed signs of backfiring early. The judge quickly agreed to AT&T's request to stay discovery. Meanwhile, by early 2013, Prenda's business was collapsing. The firm was ultimately hit with serious sanctions in a Los Angeles case. With discovery stayed and trouble on the horizon elsewhere, Prenda predictably lost interest in the case. It dismissed the suit in March.

That wasn't the end of it, however. In the original complaint, Lightspeed had accused a particular user, Anthony Smith, of hacking its websites. Prenda dropped the case, but Smith's lawyers went on the counterattack. Two weeks after the case was dismissed, Smith filed a motion asking for attorneys' fees. Lightspeed and Prenda had pursued lawsuits as a lark, Smith said, using "unreasonable and vexatious" litigation to simply get the names of people they could threaten.

Prenda had "no valid claims to stand behind" and the whole lawsuit was "a pretext for pursuing non-parties" that warranted sanctions.

Seven months later, Smith's motion has been approved, and Prenda will be punished by having to pay attorneys' fees—yet again.

"The litigation smacked of bullying pretense," wrote US District Judge G. Patrick Murphy in yesterday's order, which asks for a precise fee request to be submitted by next week. "Plaintiff raised baseless claims despite knowledge those claims were frivolous and pressed for a meritless ‘emergency’ discovery hearing."

This is the fifth known case in which Prenda has been ordered to pay fees. The first, second, third, and fourth instances total more than $176,000, not including interest. In this case, Smith's lawyers, Dan Booth and Jason Sweet, have estimated their client's fees to be about $70,000.