A WWII spy thriller starring Nicolas Cage vanished from Netflix's offices. Now the producer wants $105 million.

The case opens with a failure of custody. On June 15, 2026, a producer hand-delivered an unencrypted digital cinema package to Netflix's Sunset Bronson Studios offices in Los Angeles, with explicit instructions to delete the files after screening and notify him when the drive was ready for pickup. Roughly ten days later, Netflix acquisitions head Sean Berney emailed the filmmakers to report that the drive and others had been stolen. He described it, according to the filing, as a first for Netflix.

Writer-producer Simon Afram and his company Op-Fortitude filed suit in U.S. District Court, Central District of California, on July 30, alleging negligence and breach of contract. Afram spent seven years and approximately $45 million bringing the film to the screen, according to the filing. The lawsuit puts Fortitude's commercial value at over $112 million and seeks a minimum of $105 million in damages.

Directed by Simon West, reuniting with Cage nearly three decades after Con Air, Fortitude is based on the true story of Operation Fortitude, the Allied deception campaign that misled Nazi intelligence ahead of the D-Day landings. Cage plays real-life double agent Dusko Popov. The cast also includes Matthew Goode, Ed Skrein, Michael Sheen, Ben Kingsley, Alice Eve, and Jordi Molla. The film wrapped production in London in October 2025 and was headed toward a planned theatrical release and awards campaign.

Netflix disputes liability. The company said it "disputes any claim that it bears the risk of loss for a film delivered without the proper industry-standard safeguards" and confirmed it is monitoring piracy sites for unauthorized distribution.

The lawsuit claims the theft "compromised the sale of the film and jeopardized its planned release strategy and awards campaign." A hand-delivered, unencrypted drive bypasses the watermarked secure portals that have become standard practice for acquisition screenings. The case may set a precedent for how liability is shared when a filmmaker and a major streamer disagree on who owns the chain of custody.