
The Theft of an Unreleased Nicolas Cage Film Sparks a $105 Million Lawsuit Against Netflix
Producer Simon Afram alleges that a stolen hard drive containing the unencrypted master copy of 'Fortitude' has destroyed the film's commercial exclusivity.
On 25 June, an email from Netflix’s head of film acquisitions landed in the inbox of the producers of Fortitude. “This is a first for us,” wrote Sean Berney. “Unfortunately, someone stole a good amount of drives from our office desks this past week. We’ve been working through this with our security teams to no luck.” The message confirmed what the filmmakers had feared since they hand-delivered a hard drive to the streaming giant’s Hollywood office ten days earlier: the unencrypted master copy of their unreleased Second World War spy thriller, starring Nicolas Cage, was gone.
The film’s writer and producer, Swiss businessman Simon Afram, had spent seven years and more than $45 million of his own fortune shepherding Fortitude to completion. Directed by Simon West, the picture reconstructs the real-life Allied deception campaign Operation Fortitude, with Cage playing the Serbian double agent Duško Popov—a playboy spy whose exploits are widely believed to have inspired Ian Fleming’s James Bond. The cast includes Ben Kingsley, Matthew Goode, Michael Sheen and Alice Eve. Afram’s journey had already been fraught: in 2023 he sued Martin Scorsese, alleging the director accepted $500,000 to serve as executive producer but did nothing to advance the project; that case was settled out of court the following year.
The disappearance of the hard drive has plunged the film into a new crisis. According to the lawsuit filed on 30 July in federal court in California, the associate producer who delivered the Digital Cinema Package on 15 June explicitly told Netflix the copy was unencrypted and asked that the files be deleted after the private screening. The complaint cites Netflix’s own delivery instructions, which stated: “If the DCP is encrypted, please have the keys open from the time the asset lands through EOD on 6/16.” The producers argue they followed those instructions and that Netflix had a duty to secure the material, not leave it on a desk where it could be stolen.
Afram and his company Op-Fortitude are seeking at least $105 million in damages, contending that the theft has “destroyed that exclusivity and materially, if not completely, impaired the film’s marketability.” Any prospective distributor, they note, would have to be informed that an unencrypted copy was stolen before release, a disclosure that could derail acquisition negotiations, complicate insurance, and heighten piracy risks. Netflix disputes responsibility, stating that it “bears the risk of loss for a film delivered without the proper industry-standard safeguards.” The company says it has conducted an internal investigation, offered to monitor known piracy sites, and claims that Afram’s legal team initially demanded $165 million in what it calls a “hostile attempt at extortion.” The producers, meanwhile, allege that Netflix has refused to say whether it filed a police report or involved the Los Angeles Police Department.
No evidence has yet emerged that Fortitude has leaked online. Berney’s email speculated that the thieves may have taken the drives simply to sell as scrap. Yet the film’s fate remains suspended in a peculiar limbo: a finished, star-driven espionage thriller, years in the making, whose commercial future may have been decided not by a studio executive but by an opportunistic theft from an office desk. The missing hard drive, unencrypted and unaccounted for, has become a ghost in the machine of modern content distribution.
| Atlantic / Anglosphere press | 0.00 | neutral |
|---|---|---|
| Continental European press | 0.00 | neutral |
| Latin American press | −0.50 | critical |
| Indian & South Asian press | −0.30 | critical |
Netflix rejects the accusations and reiterates that the producer violated industry safety standards.
The bloc gives space to Netflix's defense without editorializing, creating the impression that the case is open and responsibility shared.
It omits the emphasis on the producer's long work and investment, which could have strengthened his position.
The producer delivered an unprotected hard drive, so he is responsible for the loss.
By foregrounding Netflix's claim about the lack of encryption, the narrative implicitly suggests that the producer's negligence caused the theft.
It omits the possibility that Netflix still has a duty to safeguard the received material, regardless of encryption.
Netflix lost the master copy of the film and must compensate the producer for its negligence.
Using verbs like 'responsabilizan' and highlighting the disappearance, the press constructs a narrative of corporate irresponsibility without giving equal weight to Netflix's defense.
It omits Netflix's defense regarding the lack of encryption, which could reduce the company's liability.
The producer invested $45 million and seven years, and now Netflix has destroyed his chances of profit.
By emphasizing the producer's personal sacrifice and the film's potential, the press elicits sympathy and positions Netflix as the cause of the loss.
It omits the detail that the hard drive was unencrypted, which could mitigate Netflix's fault.
Broaden your view
US Senate votes 86-11 to advance Russia sanctions bill authorising 100% tariffs on top energy buyers
2 languages · 40 outlets
From Economy & MarketsRising provisions signal tougher lending cycle for Latin American banks
2 languages · 6 outlets
From TechnologyRussian ministry proposes SMS ban for children’s SIM cards, risking social media access
1 language · 13 outlets