By Aashi Nema and Nitika Sinha
INTRODUCTION
New York, September 30, 2025 – the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Indian filmmaker Soham Shah against Netflix, Inc., Netflix Worldwide Entertainment, LLC, and Squid Game creator Hwang Dong-Hyuk. Shah alleged that the globally successful 2021 South Korean television series Squid Game infringed the copyright of his 2009 Hindi film, Luck, and its 2008 screenplay.
Justice Ronnie Abrams granted Netflix’s motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that Shah failed to establish ownership of the 2009 Hindi film Luck and its screenplay, and that, in any event, Luck and Squid Game are not substantially similar.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Plaintiff: Soham Shah, an Indian citizen, screenwriter, scriptwriter and director who alleges creation and exclusive ownership of a “Luck Story” (2006), a 2008 Luck Screenplay, and certain interests in the 2009 Luck Film. He registered the Story with the Screenwriters Association of India (2007) and the title with the Association of Motion Pictures & TV Programme Producers in 2007; he later provided the Screenplay to the Indian producer Shree Ashtavinayak Cine Vision Ltd. under contracts in 2008. He submitted a U.S. registration application for the Screenplay (September 2024) that was pending at the time of the opinion.
Defendants: Netflix, Inc. and Netflix Worldwide Entertainment, LLC (Delaware corporations with principal places of business in California; Netflix, Inc. has offices in the Southern District of New York); and Hwang Dong-Hyuk (South Korean writer/creator of Squid Game). Netflix Worldwide Entertainment, LLC holds U.S. copyrights to Squid Game season one. Plaintiff alleges Hwang has attended events and contracted in the Southern District.
THE FACTS IN ISSUE
Luck (Film and Screenplay): A 2009 Hindi feature film based on Shah’s 2008 Screenplay. The Film follows Ram Mehra, a man in India who, motivated by debt and a desire for a U.S. visa, is recruited to play a series of life-or-death contests run by a character named Musa (creator) and his frontman Tamaang. The Film’s central motif is luck, selecting contestants who are uniquely lucky and staging perilous games that exploit luck (gun roulette, parachute jump, handcuffed shipping container in ocean, train rescue). The Film features Bollywood stylistic elements including musical numbers, choreographed sequences, and several subplots (romance between Ram and Natasha, protagonist’s unique luck condition). The Film was released worldwide (India, U.K., U.S., UAE, Canada, Romania, Russia) and reportedly starred major Bollywood names. Shemaroo later filed a copyright registration application for the Film in India.
Squid Game (Season 1): A nine-episode 2021 Korean drama created by Hwang, following Seong Gi-hun, a debt-stricken protagonist recruited to play a sequence of children’s games with fatal stakes. Features nearly 456 contestants, children’s games retooled as deadly contests (e.g., red light/green light, ddakji recruitment, honeycomb carving, marbles, tug-of-war, glass tile hopscotch, final “squid game”), numbered players, uniformed masked guards, a dystopian isolated playhouse, televised/observed elements, and subplots (organ harvesting, police detective’s search for a missing brother, twist that elderly Oh Il-nam created the game).
PROCEDURAL POSTURE
Plaintiff filed a complaint on September 13, 2024, seeking damages and injunctive relief for alleged copyright infringement of the Screenplay and Film. Defendants moved to dismiss: Hwang moved under Rule 12(b)(2) (lack of personal jurisdiction); Netflix moved under Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim and lack of standing). The Court assumed personal jurisdiction over Hwang for purposes of resolving the facial sufficiency of the complaint because the court indisputably had jurisdiction over Netflix and the jurisdictional facts as to Hwang were disputed. The Court then addressed Rule 12(b)(6) grounds and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY PARTIES
Plaintiff’s principal allegations
Shah alleged that he is the exclusive owner of the Luck Story and Screenplay and that the Luck Story/Screenplay (and Film as manifested) contain protectible characters, plot, themes, and treatment that Netflix and Hwang copied in Squid Game (complaint cites 16 plot similarities and 29 character parallels). He alleged the Film was widely released and therefore accessible to Defendants (spoken dialogue, printed subtitles, screening) and that this provided access. He also alleged a continuing ownership interest under Indian law in the Film (royalty/“utilisation” interests), and contended that Shree’s and Shemaroo’s apparent copyright filings do not negate his rights. He sought relief for infringement of both the Screenplay and the Film.
Defendants’ principal arguments
- Lack of standing as to the Film: Defendants argued that Shah does not hold the copyright to the Luck Film and has not plausibly alleged legal or beneficial ownership of the film copyright. Under Indian law the author/producer of a cinematograph film (here Shree) is the original copyright owner unless there is an express written assignment, so Shah lacks standing to sue as to the Film. Shah’s alleged royalty or “portion of proceeds” interest does not amount to the exclusive legal or beneficial ownership required by 17 U.S.C. § 501(b).
- Failure to plead access adequately and actual copying: Defendants argued Shah failed to plead plausible access to the Film or Screenplay by Defendants. The Court, however, for purposes of the 12(b)(6) motion assumed actual copying occurred, following Second Circuit guidance, and proceeded to analyze substantial similarity.
- Lack of substantial similarity: Defendants maintained that even if copying occurred, Squid Game and Luck are not substantially similar in their protectible expression. Much of the alleged overlap e.g., contestants in deadly games for prize money; betting by outsiders; players motivated by poverty or desperation; numbered/anonymous contestants is an unprotectible idea, stock character, or scènes à faire that naturally follow from the premise. They cited many prior works with similar broad concepts e.g., The Hunger Games, Battle Royale, Kaiji, The Running Man.
LEGAL STANDARDS THE COURT APPLIED
The Court applied familiar Second Circuit and Supreme Court standards on (1) personal jurisdiction, (2) Rule 12(b)(6) pleadings, and (3) copyright-specific doctrines:
- Lack of Copyright Ownership
The Court held that Shah lacked standing to sue over Luck because he did not plausibly allege legal or beneficial ownership of the film’s copyright. Under Indian law, the producer of a cinematograph film is its “author” and first owner unless otherwise agreed. Since Shree Ashtavinayak was the producer, Shah was not the copyright holder. The Court also rejected Shah’s claim that a right to receive royalties gave him beneficial ownership, noting that such a “mere interest” does not amount to an exclusive right under copyright law.
- No Substantial Similarity
Even if Shah had standing, the Court found that Squid Game and Luck were “dramatically and drastically different” in their total concept and feel. While both involved life-or-death games with cash prizes, the Court held this was an unprotectable idea or “scène-à-faire.”
Key differences included:
- Squid Game depicts debt-ridden players in a dystopian Korean survival drama;
- Luck centers on “lucky” individuals in a flashy Bollywood action film with musical sequences, romance, and a moral about fate.
- The Court noted that similarities such as contestants being numbered, or wealthy patrons betting on the games, were generic tropes found in many works like The Hunger Games and Battle Royale.
Author’s Note
The ruling reinforces core principles of copyright law. First, when a U.S. court assesses standing for a work of foreign origin, it will look to the law of the work’s country of origin to determine ownership, but the plaintiff must still satisfy the U.S. requirement of owning an “exclusive right” to sue. Shah’s reliance on a right to share proceeds proved insufficient to meet this threshold.
Second, the ruling serves as a powerful reminder that ideas are not protectable under copyright, only the unique expression of those ideas is. The shared concept of “debt-ridden people in a deadly game” is an unprotectable idea. The Court focused on the fundamental differences in the works’ narrative structure, character development, atmosphere, genre (Bollywood action versus Korean drama), and specific plot details. Ultimately, a successful copyright claim requires copying more than just a generalized theme; it requires the appropriation of the author’s distinct, creative expression.