In Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, Capitol Records, Inc. and several other recording companies sued Jammie Thomas-Rasset for copyright infringement when she unlawfully downloaded and made available to others for download several of the plaintiffs' copyrighted songs. For the purposes of this appeal, the parties did not dispute that Thomas-Rasset willfully infringed the plaintiffs' copyrights in 24 songs by engaging in online file-sharing. The appeal followed lengthy litigation and three jury trials. The jury in the first trial awarded statutory damages of $222,000. The juries in the second and third trial awarded $1,920,000 and $1,500,000 respectively. After each, the district court reduced the award to $54,000. On appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the plaintiffs' sought reinstatement of the $222,000 award.

The key litigated issues in this case were whether:

First, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court erred when it did not enjoin Thomas-Rasset from making copyrighted works available for distribution to the public through online media distribution systems, but only from reproducing and distributing the works. The district court reasoned that the Copyright Act did not provide an exclusive right to making recordings available. Without addressing the issue of whether "making recordings available" was a violation of the Copyright Act, the Eighth Circuit found that a district court has the authority to issue a broad injunction in cases where a proclivity for unlawful conduct is shown. Because Thomas-Rasset was a willful infringer and also exerted subsequent efforts to conceal her actions, the court was satisfied that a proclivity for unlawful conduct was present and a broad injunction could issue.

The Eighth Circuit then ruled that the district court erred in reducing the damages award to $54,000 on the ground that $54,000 was the maximum amount permitted by the Due Process Clause. The Eighth Circuit noted that the Supreme Court has held that statutory damages only violate due process when they are so severe and oppressive that they are wholly disproportionate to the offense and obviously unreasonable. The court reasoned that taking into account the fact that Congress was aware of the problem of online copyright infringement when it revisited the Copyright Act in 1999 and it amended the statute to increase the minimum and maximum awards, an award of $222,000 for 24 instances of willful infringement is not severe or oppressive, noting that:

The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the matter with directions to enter a judgment for damages in the amount of $222,000 and to include an injunction preventing Thomas-Rasset from making any of the plaintiff's recordings available for online distribution to the public.