Cordova publishes videos on a YouTube channel,”Denver Metro Audits.” He claims that the defendants republish substantial portions of those videos on their YouTube channel, “Frauditor Troll Channel.” Cordova sent DMCA takedown notices targeting the defendants’ videos, but the defendants counternoticed and YouTube reinstated the defendants’ video. Cordova claims the defendants’ counternotices violated 512(f). The defendants argued that Cordova did not adequately allege they subjectively didn’t believe they had the right to upload their videos, especially in light of the defendants’ belief that fair use applies. The court disagrees and rejects the motion to dismiss.

Let’s take a look at the evidence that Cordova marshalled in support of the defendants’ knowledge.

One of the defendants posted a video, “How to do Fair Use Properly and Avoid Copyright Strikes,” which purportedly promised that following its advice would make any commentary videos “100% safe fair use.” (Every lawyer and law professor is vigorously shaking their heads because “100% safe fair use” doesn’t exist). The recommended steps include:

• insert commentary “about 40 seconds to every minute [of the original video]”
• use lengthy introductions and conclusions
• intersperse other clips to “increase the proportion of time that is something else than one specific video”
• use “less than fifty percent of a specific video”; and an uploader is “unlikely to get a copyright strike” if he or she “only us[es] 30% of someone’s video.”

None of these recommendations are “bad” advice, but the recommendations (even if followed faithfully) cannot ensure the commentator will qualify for fair use either.

Cordova weaponizes these standards against the defendants, pointing out that his original videos represented 54%, 62%, and 81% (respectively) of the defendants’ uploaded commentary videos. In other words, the fair use video recommended keeping the original source material under 50% and then the defendants exceeded that threshold.

To which I say…so what? The represented standard was “100% safe fair use.” If the defendants’ videos used a higher percentage of the source videos, the defendants might have still subjectively believed they qualified for fair use–perhaps only with 95% confidence or whatever, but still thinking they qualified. (No one who understands fair use ever believes they have 100% odds of fair use, so 100% confidence is an unrealistic standard to expect). On the other hand, if you’re going to take a strong public position on what constitutes fair use, there’s always a risk you will be estopped (legitimately or not) from claiming different standards.

The court cites additional evidence about the defendants’ subjective belief their putback notices were wrong. Cordova alleged that a defendant contacted him when the putback notices were submitted and demanded $9k. The defendant also stated that he knew the putback notices would ensure the videos restored, and also warned Cordova that, when the targeted videos were put back, YouTube might penalize Cordova’s channel. This, combined with some other evidence, prompted Cordova to make the following speculative inference that the court credits:

defendants viewed the DMCA counter-notice procedure as a mere tactic to obtain automatic reinstatement of the accused videos, knowing that false assertions of “fair use” would likely go unchallenged, due to the burden and expense of litigation

The defendants pointed to the various 512(f) cases where fair use considerations were relevant to the notice sender’s scienter, like the Lenz case. The court distinguishes those cases as applying only at the summary judgment stage or later. Motion to dismiss denied.

It’s rare for 512(f) claims to survive motions to dismiss, and this case doesn’t change that view. The facts at issue here are not likely to be found in other cases. First, it’s rare to have 512(f) defendants publicly discuss the legal standards that apply to their conduct. Second, using takedown/putback notices as extortive weapons could demonstrate the Rossi-required scienter, but most courts would not consider the exercise of takedown/putback rights as extortive without significant additional evidence of extortive intent. After all, courts can’t penalize defendants for taking advantage of legally enshrined rights.

The court also denies a motion to dismiss Cordova’s 1201 claim for copying his YouTube videos. “Mr. Cordova has adequately pled that YouTube applies technological measures, including ‘rolling-cipher technology’ designed to prevent unauthorized downloading, to videos published on its platform that effectively control access to his videos for purposes of § 1201(a).”

Case Citation: Cordova v. Huneault, 2026 WL 184598 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2026)

Prior Posts on Section 512(f)

* Copyright Takedown Notices May Be Affecting Your Washing Machine Options–Ningbo Yituo v. GoPlus * 512(f) Claim Sent to Trial (Which Didn’t Happen)–Leszczynski v. Kitchen Cube * 512(f) Doesn’t Support Preliminary Injunction–BViral v. TheSoul * In 512(f), the “F” Stands for “Futility”–Shaffer v. Kavarnos * Does Anyone Still Care About NFTs? (Yuga Labs, LLC v. Ripps) — Guest Blog Post * Viral DRM Awarded Damages for Its 512(f) Claims, But At What Cost? * Big YouTube Channel Gets TRO Against Being Targeted by DMCA Copyright Takedown Notices–Invisible Narratives v. Next Level Apps * The Competition Between Temu and Shein Moves Into a Courtroom–Whaleco v. Shein * Copyright Battles Over City Council Videos * Record Label Sends Bogus Takedown Notice, Defeats 512(f) Claim Anyway–White v. UMG * Plaintiffs Make Some Progress in 512(f) Cases * 512(f) Doesn’t Restrict Competitive Gaming of Search Results–Source Capital v. Barrett Financial * 512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership Dispute–Shande v. Zoox * Surprise! Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Bored Ape Yacht Club v. Ripps * You’re a Fool if You Think You Can Win a 512(f) Case–Security Police and Fire Professionals v. Maritas * 512(f) Plaintiff Must Pay $91k to the Defense–Digital Marketing v. McCandless * Anti-Circumvention Takedowns Aren’t Covered by 512(f)–Yout v. RIAA * 11th Circuit UPHOLDS a 512(f) Plaintiff Win on Appeal–Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports * Court Mistakenly Thinks Copyright Owners Have a Duty to Police Infringement–Sunny Factory v. Chen * Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Moonbug v. Babybus * A 512(f) Plaintiff Wins at Trial! –Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports * Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court * 512(f) Preempts Tortious Interference Claim–Copy Me That v. This Old Gal * 512(f) Claim Against Robo-Notice Sender Can Proceed–Enttech v. Okularity * Copyright Plaintiffs Can’t Figure Out What Copyrights They Own, Court Says ¯_(ツ)_/¯ * A 512(f) Case Leads to a Rare Damages Award (on a Default Judgment)–California Beach v. Du * 512(f) Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss–Brandyn Love v. Nuclear Blast America * 512(f) Claim Fails in the 11th Circuit–Johnson v. New Destiny Christian Center * Court Orders Rightsowner to Withdraw DMCA Takedown Notices Sent to Amazon–Beyond Blond v. Heldman * Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Ningbo Mizhihe v Doe * Video Excerpts Qualify as Fair Use (and Another 512(f) Claim Fails)–Hughes v. Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? (Spoiler: Not Well) * Another Section 512(f) Case Fails–ISE v. Longarzo * Another 512(f) Case Fails–Handshoe v. Perret *A DMCA Section 512(f) Case Survives Dismissal–ISE v. Longarzo * DMCA’s Unhelpful 512(f) Preempts Helpful State Law Claims–Stevens v. Vodka and Milk * Section 512(f) Complaint Survives Motion to Dismiss–Johnson v. New Destiny Church * ‘Reaction’ Video Protected By Fair Use–Hosseinzadeh v. Klein * 9th Circuit Sides With Fair Use in Dancing Baby Takedown Case–Lenz v. Universal * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Steiner * Vague Takedown Notice Targeting Facebook Page Results in Possible Liability–CrossFit v. Alvies * Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Tuteur v. Crosley-Corcoran * 17 USC 512(f) Is Dead–Lenz v. Universal Music * 512(f) Plaintiff Can’t Get Discovery to Back Up His Allegations of Bogus Takedowns–Ouellette v. Viacom * Updates on Transborder Copyright Enforcement Over “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer”–Shropshire v. Canning * 17 USC 512(f) Preempts State Law Claims Over Bogus Copyright Takedown Notices–Amaretto v. Ozimals * 17 USC 512(f) Claim Against “Twilight” Studio Survives Motion to Dismiss–Smith v. Summit Entertainment * Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v. UMG * Copyright Takedown Notice Isn’t Actionable Unless There’s an Actual Takedown–Amaretto v. Ozimals * Second Life Ordered to Stop Honoring a Copyright Owner’s Takedown Notices–Amaretto Ranch Breedables v. Ozimals * Another Copyright Owner Sent a Defective Takedown Notice and Faced 512(f) Liability–Rosen v. HSI * Furniture Retailer Enjoined from Sending eBay VeRO Notices–Design Furnishings v. Zen Path * Disclosure of the Substance of Privileged Communications via Email, Blog, and Chat Results in Waiver — Lenz v. Universal * YouTube Uploader Can’t Sue Sender of Mistaken Takedown Notice–Cabell v. Zimmerman * Rare Ruling on Damages for Sending Bogus Copyright Takedown Notice–Lenz v. Universal * 512(f) Claim Dismissed on Jurisdictional Grounds–Project DoD v. Federici * Biosafe-One v. Hawks Dismissed * Michael Savage Takedown Letter Might Violate 512(f)–Brave New Media v. Weiner * Fair Use – It’s the Law (for what it’s worth)–Lenz v. Universal * Copyright Owner Enjoined from Sending DMCA Takedown Notices–Biosafe-One v. Hawks * New(ish) Report on 512 Takedown Notices * Can 512(f) Support an Injunction? Novotny v. Chapman * Allegedly Wrong VeRO Notice of Claimed Infringement Not Actionable–Dudnikov v. MGA Entertainment