Automattic, Inc., a web development corporation that parents the free blogging tool, WordPress, has filed two separate lawsuits concerning egregious cases of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) takedown notices. In filing these two suits, Automattic has paired up with the individuals who run the site RetractionWatch.com (“Retraction”) for one of the lawsuits, and student journalist Oliver Hotham, for the other.
Specifically the lawsuits concern parties using bad faith DMCA takedowns as a tool to censor criticizing content on websites, rather than for a legitimate copyright infringement claim. Notably, DMCA’s primary purpose is to allow copyright holders to request their work be taken down when there has been legitimate infringement of their work. However, the other side of DMCA, which Automattic seeks damages under, is section 512(f), which allows for lawsuits against anyone who “knowingly materially misrepresents” a case of copyright infringement. With easy-to-publish websites like YouTube, legitimate DMCA takedown notices are common, but as Automattic has increasingly seen, DMCA is also being abused with false complaints from individuals who simply dislike or disagree with content.
Here, the lawsuit involving Retraction, a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers, stems from a reader’s dislike of a series of articles on site that were critical of researcher Anil Potti. In order to create an action under DMCA, that reader copied portions of the articles he disliked from Retraction, claimed the work as his own, and then issued a DMCA takedown notice against Retraction, the original authors. The second suit, involving Hotham, who publishes investigative articles on his own WordPress blog, involves an interview that Hotham conducted with the group, Straight Pride UK, who after the publication of their interview, no longer liked what they had previously stated on record. Subsequently, they used DMCA as a tool to try and remove the article that included their interview quotes.
Automattic’s voluntarily support of its users in these lawsuits has grabbed attention because typically the focus of 512(f) claims deal directly with the website owners, not their hosting company. However, Automattic’s General Counsel, Paul Siemniski, explained that Automattic’s goals behind their actions are to deter copyright abusers from submitting fraudulent DMCA takedown notices, and additionally, to protect users’ First Amendment rights.
Section 512(f) of the DMCA provides that any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is infringing — or that material was removed by mistake — is liable for damages, including costs and attorney’s fees, incurred by the alleged infringer or the service provider as a result of the notice. The provision was designed to deter bad-faith use of the takedown system, but courts have set a demanding standard: the plaintiff must prove that the sender knew the representations were false at the time of the notice, not merely that the legal conclusion was wrong.
The leading case interpreting this standard is Rossi v. Motion Picture Ass’n of Am., 391 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2004), which held that a subjective good faith belief that infringement was occurring — even if that belief was unreasonable — is sufficient to defeat a Section 512(f) claim. Critics argue that this standard makes Section 512(f) nearly toothless in practice, allowing aggressive or negligent takedown senders to escape liability. Automattic’s litigation was part of a broader effort by the content community to push back against this norm.
The DMCA takedown system creates a significant tension with First Amendment values. When a takedown notice is sent in bad faith to suppress criticism or commentary — rather than to address genuine copyright infringement — it functions as a prior restraint on protected speech. The affected user’s content is removed immediately upon receipt of the notice, often without any opportunity to contest the claim. The counter-notice procedure provides some protection, but the 10-to-14-day waiting period during which content remains offline can cause irreparable harm to journalists, academics, and commentators whose work is time-sensitive.
Automattic’s position — that it has standing to sue as a service provider harmed by fraudulent notices — represents an important effort to align the DMCA’s enforcement mechanisms with its underlying purpose. If platforms take a more aggressive posture against abusive notices, the practical deterrent effect of Section 512(f) increases even where individual claimants lack the resources to bring their own litigation.
If you believe a DMCA takedown notice against your content was submitted in bad faith — because the sender claimed copyright ownership over material they do not own, or used the takedown system to suppress legitimate speech — you should take prompt action. File a counter-notice asserting that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification, and consult a copyright attorney to evaluate whether a Section 512(f) claim or other legal action is appropriate. Document everything: the original takedown notice, the content at issue, and any evidence that the sender lacked a good faith basis for the claim.
If you have been targeted by a bad faith DMCA takedown notice, contact the copyright lawyers at Revision Legal today at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form.
Automattic’s litigation on behalf of its WordPress users highlights the importance of clear, enforceable terms of service for platform operators. A well-drafted terms of service should: (1) clearly identify what content is prohibited and the consequences of violation; (2) establish a DMCA takedown and counter-notice process that complies with Section 512; (3) include a repeat infringer termination policy that satisfies the Section 512 safe harbor requirements; and (4) require users to represent that they have all necessary rights in content they post.
For bloggers and content creators operating on platforms like WordPress.com or self-hosted WordPress installations, understanding your rights when a DMCA notice is filed against your content is essential. The counter-notice process provides an important remedy for improper takedowns, but it requires acting within the statutory timeframe and understanding the legal representations you are making when you file a counter-notice. Revision Legal advises both platform operators and individual content creators on DMCA compliance and dispute resolution.
If you have been targeted by a bad faith DMCA takedown notice, contact the copyright lawyers at Revision Legal today at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form.
Revision Legal is a national intellectual property and internet law firm that represents clients across the United States in trademark, copyright, trade secret, and internet law matters. We are a firm of specialists — not general practitioners who handle IP work as one component of a broad practice, but attorneys whose entire professional focus is on the intersection of technology, creativity, and commerce.
Our attorneys have handled cases at every level of the federal court system, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. We manage trademark portfolios for hundreds of clients, ranging from individual entrepreneurs registering their first mark to publicly traded companies maintaining global trademark portfolios across dozens of countries.
We believe that access to expert legal counsel should not depend on the size of your organization. Revision Legal’s flat-fee service model for routine IP matters — trademark registration, copyright registration, DMCA notices, and standard licensing agreements — allows small businesses, startups, and individual creators to access the same quality of legal representation that larger companies receive, at a price that is predictable and fair. For complex litigation and contested proceedings, we work efficiently to achieve the best possible outcome for our clients while managing costs responsibly.
Whatever your intellectual property or internet law need — whether you are protecting a new brand, enforcing your rights against an infringer, defending against a legal demand, or navigating a complex licensing transaction — Revision Legal has the expertise to help. Contact us today at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form to discuss your matter.
Hitpiece.com scraped artists’ music and created NFTs without permission. Here’s how the copyright infringement dispute unfolded and what it means for NFT platforms.
Read more about Hitpiece.com and Copyright Infringement
Cybersquatting involves registering domain names in bad faith to profit from others’ trademarks. Here’s an overview of the ACPA and how it protects trademark owners.
Read more about An Overview of Cybersquatting Laws
Copyright infringement fraud involves filing false DMCA notices or misrepresenting ownership to profit illegally. Here’s how these schemes work and how to fight back.
Read more about Copyright Infringement Fraud: A Serious Problem