I don't know if anyone here has followed the saga of the various "copyright troll" law firms. If not a quick primer: in the case of Prenda Law they operated by contracting with a vendor of, I believe specifically gay pornography. Then, through various tricks, often illegal or questionable discovery, they would track down people they claimed had downloaded the company's videos illegally. Then they would send threatening letters, largely designed to make the target fear having their name and the name of the salacious video made a matter of public record, and demand a fee to not prosecute, usually around $10,000.
There's a wide variety of these "troll" firms in operation in the States today: the porn angle is a popular one, for obvious reasons, but others have gone after journalists and bloggers who quote sections of text from other sites, or small businesses using technology they bought from a big company but which the troll firm claim requires patent payments. Generally the goal is to ensure that the fear of publicity or the fear of expensive lawsuits will compel the target to pay the initial sum. For lack of a better word, blackmail.
It's hardly surprising, in a way. As a friend to a large number of people who wound up in law school, I know that the market is now rather saturated, and that a great many lawyers have trouble finding work that will pay their school debts, much less wave them in to the six and seven figure salaries advertised when they chose the career path.
Anyway, Prenda, a pioneer in this race to the bottom of the excrement pile, has hit upon a new business strategy, and one we will all have to be wary of:
"Copyright troll becomes ADA troll—without knowledge of his 'clients'"
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/prenda-linked-lawyer-now-suing-small-businesses-over-ada-violations/#p3