Judge orders Namecheap to explain domain lapse in ACPA case

A federal judge has directed Namecheap to explain why it should not cover legal costs after allowing a domain subject to an in rem cybersquatting lawsuit to expire and be re-registered to a new owner. The case highlights tensions between registrar policies and statutory obligations under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA).

What happened

In April 2025, California law firm Greenberg Gross filed an in rem ACPA action against the domain GreenbergGrossLLP.com in the US District Court for the District of Arizona. The domain had been mirroring the firm’s website with altered contact details, registered under the name Diverse ISP with an address in Ghana. Because the registrant was outside US jurisdiction, the firm sued the domain itself, targeting the registrar’s district.

The dispute took a turn when Namecheap, the registrar of record, allowed the domain to lapse on July 31, 2025. On September 9, 2025, the domain was re-registered to a new customer, Belvana Sela, with contact details obscured by Namecheap’s privacy service. The plaintiff argues this sequence violated ACPA’s prohibition on modifying a domain during litigation, as the statute requires registrars to maintain the status quo upon receiving notice of a filed complaint.

Legal arguments

Namecheap’s responses, as cited in the plaintiff’s filings, centered on three claims: no obligation existed without a court order, the domain’s expiration and re-registration did not constitute a transfer, and no liability applies absent bad-faith intent. The plaintiff countered that ACPA’s text triggers obligations upon receipt of a filed complaint, not a court order, and that expiration and re-registration qualify as prohibited modifications. The court’s September 28 order sided with the plaintiff’s interpretation, noting that Namecheap’s actions—including allowing the new registrant to anonymize contact details—suggested "reckless disregard" of its statutory duties.

The dispute also hinges on ICANN’s Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). Namecheap’s counsel cited RAA clause 3.7.5.7, which addresses UDRP disputes, but the plaintiff pointed to broader provisions requiring compliance with applicable laws (3.7.2) and defining extenuating circumstances for non-renewal (3.7.5.1), which include pending litigation. The court’s order implies that ACPA’s requirements override routine expiration processes, even if ICANN’s policies lack explicit guidance for in rem cases.

Industry implications

The case underscores the operational challenges registrars face when balancing automated domain lifecycle management with legal obligations. Namecheap, which added 1.9 million .com domains in 2025—the largest gain of any registrar—must now reconcile its systems with the court’s interpretation of ACPA. If the plaintiff’s reading prevails, registrars may need to implement manual holds for domains under litigation, potentially increasing costs and complexity.

The court’s order does not resolve the dispute but sets a precedent for how ACPA’s modification ban may be enforced. Namecheap’s October 12 response will clarify whether the registrar contests the court’s interpretation or accepts partial responsibility. The outcome could influence how registrars handle domains tied to litigation, particularly when privacy services complicate enforcement.