IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—N.D. Cal.: Counterclaims tossed in copyright dispute between publishers of YouTube videos, (Apr 13, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

District court dismissed the defendants’ counterclaims with leave to amend.

In a copyright infringement suit by a publisher of YouTube videos, the publisher of a competing channel failed to adequately plead counterclaims for bad faith misrepresentation in Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notices, and declaratory judgment of non-infringement of copyright, the U.S. District Court in San Jose has held. Thus, the motion to dismiss the counterclaims was granted (Cordova v. Huneault, No. 5:25-cv-04685-VKD (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2026)).

Background. Christopher Cordova owns, operates, and creates content for a YouTube channel called “Denver Metro Audits.” Jonathan Huneault and Nneka Ohiri own and operate the YouTube channel “Frauditor Troll Channel.” 14693663 Canada Inc. (Canada Inc.) is a Canadian corporation owned and controlled by Mr. Huneault and Ms. Ohiri that acts as a co-owner or operating entity of the Frauditor Troll Channel. The defendants alleged that “in or around early 2022,” Cordova became aware of the Frauditor Troll channel and defendants’ coverage of Cordova’s videos. However, at some point, Cordova abruptly submitted multiple DMCA takedown notices to YouTube requesting removal of defendants’ videos. Thereafter, the defendants said they “faced the imminent termination” of the Frauditor Troll channel under YouTube’s copyright enforcement policies. The defendants also alleged that, to prevent permanent loss of the Frauditor Troll channel, they were “compelled” to submit DMCA counter-notices to YouTube, which constituted the only available mechanism to restore their videos and avoid termination.

Cordova brought an action against Huneault, Ohiri, and Canada Inc. (collectively, defendants) asserting four claims against the defendants: (1) copyright infringement of two copyrighted videos, Another Chad and Belmar Library, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501; (2) misrepresentation in DMCA counter-notices, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 512(f); (3) a declaration that defendants’ use of the Courthouse Fail video does not qualify as fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107; and (4) unlawful circumvention of technological measures, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a). The district court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.

The defendants claimed that as a direct and proximate result of Cordova’s actions, they suffered immediate and substantial financial harm. The defendants asserted three counterclaims against Mr. Cordova: (1) bad faith misrepresentation in DMCA takedown notices in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), (2) declaratory judgment of non-infringement of copyright, and (3) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. However, the defendants withdrew the third counterclaim. Cordova moved to dismiss defendants’ first and second counterclaims pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

First counterclaim. The defendants asserted a counterclaim under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f)(1), alleging that Cordova made knowing and material misrepresentations in the DMCA takedown notices that he filed against defendants’ videos. Specifically, the defendants alleged that Cordova’s takedown notices falsely asserted that defendants’ videos infringed his copyrights because Cordova knew that the defendants’ videos were mockery and parody commentary and reaction videos incorporating only necessary portions of Cordova’s content for purposes of criticism, discussion, and public commentary of matters involving the First Amendment. In addition, the defendants alleged that Cordova knew that he had expressly authorized, encouraged, and consented to defendants’ use of his videos.

The district court agreed that the first counterclaim failed to adequately allege any material misrepresentation by Cordova. The district court noted that among other defects, the defendants’ pleading failed to identify which of Cordova’s copyrighted works are at issue, which of defendants’ videos are at issue, and what allegedly false statements were made in which takedown notices. Further, to the extent the defendants contended they were expressly or impliedly licensed to use all of Cordova’s copyrighted works, or even the three videos they identify in their opposition, they fail to plead facts plausibly supporting such a contention. Similarly, to the extent the defendants contended that Cordova’s takedown notices falsely asserted defendants’ videos infringed, when they were instead protected by the “fair use” doctrine, the defendants did not plausibly allege, as to any specific video, that such video is entitled to fair use protection as a matter of law, or any other facts suggesting Cordova conceded such protection applied.

The district court also noted that Cordova argued that defendants fail to plead facts showing he had actual knowledge of the falsity of representations in takedown notices he submitted to YouTube, and that the defendants failed to plead facts plausibly showing that defendants were injured as a result of Cordova’s alleged misrepresentations in DMCA takedown notices. The district court agreed with Cordova because while the defendants alleged that they suffered harm as a result of “the copyright strikes,” they did not plausibly allege any connection between that harm and any specific misrepresentation by Cordova. Accordingly, the defendants’ first counterclaim failed to state a claim for violation of 17 U.S.C. § 512(f)(1).

Second counterclaim. The defendants asserted a under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of copyright. Specifically, the defendants seek a declaration that their videos do not infringe Cordova’s copyrights, that such videos constitute fair use under the Copyright Act, and that Cordova granted the defendants a nonexclusive license, express or implied, to use the content at issue. Cordova moved to dismiss this counterclaim for lack of Article III standing under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that because defendants failed to identify any specific videos or copyrighted works for which declaratory relief is sought, they failed to establish the existence of any actual case or controversy. Cordova also moved to dismiss on the ground that defendants failed to state a claim with respect to the existence of a non-exclusive license authorizing them to copy or use any and all of Cordova’s copyright works.

The district court found that Cordova’s Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) arguments are based on the same objections: the counterclaim fails to identify the specific Frauditor Troll videos or copyrighted works at issue and fails to plausibly plead facts supporting the elements of an express or implied license. The district court agreed with Cordova that the second counterclaim generally described the type of videos that the parties create, alleged that Cordova owns unspecified copyrights, and asserted that Cordova submitted multiple copyright takedown notices against the counterclaimants. From these general allegations, the defendants purported to seek a declaratory judgment that they are not liable for infringing any of Cordova’s copyrights, that all of their videos constitute fair use of Cordova’s videos, and that Cordova granted defendants a non-exclusive license to use all of his content.

The district court was not persuaded by defendants’ argument that they have adequately pled the terms of an express or implied license. The district court found that the second counterclaim does not plausibly allege the existence of an implied license based on the “totality of the parties’ conduct.” Further, the defendants’ implied license theory is based solely on allegations that Cordova made conciliatory remarks to Huneault during an interview that referenced no specific copyrighted works, sent other videos (not the copyrighted works at issue) to defendants, and participated in defendants’ “livestream” programming. The district court determined that such allegations do not plausibly support defendants’ claim that they enjoyed an implied license to use all of Cordova’s copyright works or any specific copyright work or that Cordova intended to provide such a license.

Accordingly, the district court concluded that defendants’ second counterclaim failed to plead the existence of a “case or controversy” as to any specific works or videos, and failed to state a claim for declaratory judgment.

Therefore, Cordova’s motion to dismiss the first and second counterclaims was granted with leave to amend.

The Case is No. 5:25-cv-04685-VKD.

Judge: DeMarchi, V.

Attorneys: Randall Scott Newman (Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP) for Christopher J. Cordova. Simon Pak Hei Lin (Evolink Law Group) for Jonathan Huneault.

Cases: Copyright TechnologyInternet CaliforniaNews GCNNews