If the claimant takes you to court and loses, there is no penalty, I assume? There's punitive damages in the US - any chance that would be applied to such a case?
As far as the court case goes, it's basically just like it would be if the complainant had simply sued you directly for copyright infringement. If you win, the court can award you costs and attorney fees. I'm not sure how they decide whether or not to do so.
A claimant trying to use DMCA where it is not justifiable faces a couple other deterrents.
First, unless the claimant is representing themselves in the case, they are going to have an attorney, and that attorney is going to take into account Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [1]. If the claimant doesn't have a fairly reasonable case, he is going to have trouble finding an attorney.
Second, knowingly including false information on a DMCA takedown notice is perjury. The claimant can face criminal charges for that (although it would probably have to involve someone doing this on a large scale to get Federal prosecutors to prosecute).
Knowingly filing a false DMCA takedown also makes you liable for civil damages, including costs and attorney fees, incurred by the target of the takedown notice, the hosting provider, and in the case where neither the complainant or the target are the copyright owner, the actual copyright owner.
If the complainant who knowingly files a false takedown notice actually follows through and sue you for infringement, I'd guess that the damages due to you for the false notice would be handled there.
If the complainant isn't that stupid, and drops the matter after the notice and counter-notice, you could sue them over the false notice.
> Second, knowingly including false information on a DMCA takedown notice is perjury
I've reviewed the DMCA a few times and I am pretty sure this isn't true. It's supposed to be the "teeth" of the DMCA to prevent false claims, but the actual teeth are very blunted.
The requirements a DMCA takedown notice are[1]
1. you have to sign it as someone authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner.
2. you have to identify the work you claim is being infringed.
3. you have to identify the work you want them to take down.
4. you have to give them your contact information.
5. you have to state that you have a "good faith belief" that the content is infringing.
6. Direct quote, and the only use of the word "perjury" in the notification requirements: "A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly in-fringed."
The only thing you must declare under penalty of perjury is that you are authorized to act for the copyright owner. The only other claim you make is that you are acting in "good faith", which is super fuzzy. An actor sending out notices on content detected by content-id bots is almost certainly acting in "good faith" if they haven't been made aware of potential errors by those bots.
