IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—11th Cir.: No attorney fees for YouTube in content matching technology case, (Aug 25, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

Because the question was an open one in the circuit court, the lawsuit was objectively reasonable.

A classic Latin American film owner that brought an unsuccessful lawsuit against YouTube will not have to pay attorney fees because its claim was objectively reasonable and not brought in bad faith, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held. The court, in a brief unpublished opinion, agreed with the district court that the merits of YouTube’s defense under the DMCA, while well-established in other circuit courts, was an open question in the 11th Circuit at the time of the lawsuit (Athos Overseas Limited Corp. v. YouTube, Inc., No. 24-12636 (11th Cir. Aug. 20, 2026)).

The opinion arises out of a dispute between YouTube and Athos Overseas Limited, which owns the copyright to many classic Mexican and Latin American films. Athos sued YouTube (and its corporate parent Google) in 2021, alleging copyright infringement based on the unauthorized posting of its copyrighted material by other YouTube users. Athos argued, among other things, that YouTube must have been aware of its users’ infringement because Athos had sent thousands of takedown notices and that YouTube had content-matching technology ostensibly enabling it to detect infringement automatically. YouTube, relying on the “safe harbor” provision of the DMCA, argued that it was immune from liability for its users’ infringement because it was not aware of any specific infringing posts by its users at the time it could have removed them.

The district court, acting on a report and recommendation from a magistrate, granted summary judgment to YouTube, and the court of appeals affirmed. In doing so, the court of appeals joined with two of its sister circuits—the Second Circuit in Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2012) and the Ninth Circuit in UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Cap. Partners LLC, 718 F.3d 1006 (2013)—in finding that YouTube would have had to be aware of specific instances of infringement in order to trigger an obligation to remove the content. In other words, the court of appeals made clear, YouTube’s affirmative obligation to remove infringing content “requires more than a vague knowledge and awareness by a service provider of the general existence of infringing material on its website for the provider to lose safe-harbor protection.” Nor did it matter that YouTube had content-matching technology available, the court of appeals found, because that technology, even if it had been applied to Athos’ works, produces only “lists of possible infringement” that then must be reviewed by a human.

Attorney fees. While the merits of the issue were being taken up by the court of appeals, the district court also addressed YouTube’s request for attorney fees. Central to its analysis was whether Athos’ claim, while unsuccessful, was objectively reasonable. The court found that it was. “The claims were contingent on the resolution of an issue of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit,” the court found. “While we ultimately decided against [Athos], that [Athos’] argument was one of first impression strongly supports a finding that it was not objectively unreasonable.” The court also rejected YouTube’s claim that Athos acted in bad faith, finding that Athos’ delay in bringing its lawsuit and its owner’s alleged evasiveness in depositions, while they “may have annoyed” YouTube, did not refute Athos’ contention that it acted “with the sole purpose of stopping the infringement of its movies.”

The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment on attorney fees, albeit with little explanation. The court’s short unpublished opinion spelled out the applicable factors and then concluded, without further embellishment, that “the district court properly exercised its discretion in weighing these factors and determining that YouTube was not entitled to recover attorney’s fees.”

The Case is No. 24-12636.

Judge: Per curiam.

Attorneys: Natalie A. Ferral (Dorta & Ortega, PA) for Athos Overseas Ltd. Corp. Brian M. Willen (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC) for YouTube, Inc.

Companies: Athos Overseas Ltd. Corp.; YouTube, Inc.

Cases: Copyright AlabamaNews FloridaNews GeorgiaNews