Source: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/04/how-have-section-512f-cases-fared-since-2017-spoiler-not-well.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:17:29+00:00

Document:
On Monday, I’m participating in a Copyright Office workshop on Section 512. The workshop supports the Copyright Office’s long-pending Section 512 report, which started in 2015 but stalled out in 2017. To freshen up the project, the workshop will cover developments since 2017. Over 50 “speakers” are participating in the panels, and each has been given a total of 45 *SECONDS* to make introductory remarks. I do talk fast…but not that fast!
BMaddox Enters., LLC v. Oskouie, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146766 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2017). Non-substantive reference.
Columbia Trading Corp. v. Green Elecs., LLC., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129048 (D.N.J. July 27, 2018). 512(f) claim failed because it didn’t properly allege a DMCA takedown notice.
Consumer Opinion LLC v. Frankfort News Corp., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159251 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2017). Non-substantive reference.
DT Fashion LLC v. Cline, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11654 (S.D. Ohio. Jan. 24, 2018). Non-substantive reference.
Handshoe v. Perret, 270 F.Supp.3d 915 (S.D. Miss. 2017). The plaintiff had Article III standing, but most of his claims lacked statutory standing as an individual because the takedown notices were directed to his corporation’s content. Two 512(f) claims survived the motion to dismiss. However, one claim was dismissed in Handshoe v. Perrett, 1:15-cv-00382-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss. Sept. 13, 2018) because the takedown notice sender did not have the requisite bad faith. In a related ruling, in Handshoe v. Perret, 2018 WL 5316361 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 26, 2018), a 512(f) claim based on counternotice survived a motion to dismiss. That ruling also confirms that 512(f) claims have a three year statute of limitation.
Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). 512(f) claim failed against counternotice when the content qualified for fair use and the defendant had good faith.
ISE Entm’t Corp. v. Longarzo, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40755 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2018). 512(f) claim survived a motion to dismiss. The court says “neither copyright ownership nor registration are prerequisites to bringing a section 512(f) action. As an ‘alleged infringer,’ ISE has standing to sue under section 512(f).” The court permitted the claim even though the 512(f) plaintiff didn’t know if the takedown notices referenced copyright issues, and the court accepted the complaint’s allegations of bad faith. However, the lawsuit failed in ISE Entm’t Corp v. Longarzo, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208921 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2018) because the takedown notices weren’t DMCA notices.
Jinjit, Ltd. v. Jovani Fashion, Ltd., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59027 (S.D.N.Y. March 28, 2017). Non-substantive reference.
Johnson v. New Destiny Christian Center Church, 2017 WL 3682357 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2017). This case has produced numerous rulings. In this ruling, the 512(f) claim survived a motion to dismiss. However, in Johnson v. New Destiny Christian Center Church, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33513 (M.D. Fla. March 4, 2019), the court dismissed the 512(f) claim for lack of bad faith.
Kaniadakis v. Executive Board of Directors, 2018 WL 4568871 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2018). Non-substantive reference.
Kazakhstan v. Ketebaev, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211198 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2017). Non-substantive reference (only quoting a different case).
Marketran, LLC v. Brooklyn Water Enterprises, Inc., 2017 WL 1304121 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2017). 512(f) claim survived motion to dismiss. The case voluntarily dismissed shortly thereafter.
Melendez v. Vaiana, 2017 WL 8183139 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2017). Non-substantive reference.
Mometrix Media, LLC v. LCR Publishing, LLC, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 9499 (Tex. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2018). The court says it’s unclear if 512(f) preempts a state law tortious interference claim.
Monsarrat v. Zaiger, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152002 (D. Mass. Aug. 13, 2018). Non-substantive reference.
Nakada Assocs v. City of El Monte, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91755 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2017). Non-substantive reference.
Shear Mobility, LLC v. Stoll, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175521 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2018). Non-substantive reference.
Stardock Sys. V. Reiche, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222971 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2018). Non-substantive reference.
Stark Drive LLC v. Michael, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198105 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2018). Non-substantive reference.
Stern v. Lavender, 319 F.Supp.3d 650 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). 512(f) claim failed because senders had good faith.
Stevens v. Vodka & Milk, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43666 (S.D.N.Y. March 12, 2018). Section 512 preempts state tortious interference claims.
Weinberg v. Dirty World, LLC, 2017 WL 5665022 (C.D. Cal. April 24, 2017). 512(f) claim survived motion to dismiss. It appears this case subsequently voluntarily dismissed.
Williby v. Hearst Corp., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106212 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2017). Non-substantive reference.
Windstream Servs., LLC v. BMG Rights Mgmt. (US) LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58204 (S.D.N.Y. April 17, 2017). Non-substantive reference.
Zithromia Ltd. v. Gazeus Negocios De Internet SA, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205704 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2018). Sending takedown notice didn’t confer personal jurisdiction for 512(f) claim.
Statistics. By my count, at least 25 cases have referenced Section 512(f) since January 1, 2017. Some of those cases produced multiple rulings. However, over half of the opinions didn’t substantively analyze 512(f) at all.
Results. Several rulings allowed Section 512(f) claims to survive a motion to dismiss. However, since January 1, 2017, I’m not aware of a single case where a 512(f) plaintiff won on the merits. (There are likely favorable settlements, such as Lenz, but those are beyond my scope).
Online Policy Grp. v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195, 1205 (N.D. Cal. 2004). The defendant subsequently settled for $125,000.
Automattic Inc. v. Steiner, 2015 WL 1022655 (N.D. Cal. March 2, 2015). In a default judgment, the court awarded about $25,000 in damages. I don’t if Automattic collected any of the judgment.
In light of the Ninth Circuit’s Rossi decision, which said the statutory good faith requirement is determined subjectively, it’s unlikely 512(f) claims will find greater success in the future. That raises the obvious question of whether 512(f) is playing–or has the capacity to play–its statutorily contemplated role of motivating copyright owners to do their homework before benefiting from 512’s notice-and-takedown machinery. It’s hard to believe that copyright owners haven’t done adequate pre-notification homework only twice in 21 years.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.