A Competitor Filed a False Copyright Complaint and Your Listing Came Down: The Section 512(f) Claim

Last updated: November 2026. Reviewed by Pavel Kolmogorov, California business litigation attorney (State Bar No. 321018).

Yes, if you can prove the competitor knew its complaint was false. Federal law makes anyone who knowingly and materially misrepresents that material is infringing liable for the damages, costs, and attorney's fees that follow when a platform removes it. (17 U.S.C. § 512(f).) The hard part is knowledge. In the federal courts that cover California, an honest mistake is not enough, even an unreasonable one. Kolmogorov Law, P.C. litigates these claims for California sellers and brands, and defends companies accused of sending a false notice.

Call (909) 235-6116 or contact us online to discuss a takedown before you answer the platform or the sender.

What happened, and what to do this week

A marketplace, video site, or host removed your listing because someone sent it a notice claiming copyright infringement. Federal law gives platforms a reason to act quickly. Responding expeditiously to a proper notice is a condition of their own protection from liability. (17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(C).)

• Save everything: the platform's email, the notice if you can get it, the listing as it stood, and daily sales before and after.
• Consider a counter-notice. It is the faster fix, and it can bring the listing back 10 to 14 business days after the platform receives it, unless the sender first tells the platform it has sued to restrain the use. (17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(2).) Our DMCA takedown and counter-notice guide explains what it must say and what you consent to by sending it.
• Do not retaliate with a notice of your own, and do not send the competitor an angry message.

The lawsuit is the slower remedy. It pays for the harm a counter-notice cannot undo.

What section 512(f) covers

The statute reaches a person who knowingly materially misrepresents, under section 512, that material or activity is infringing. That person is liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer who is injured by the misrepresentation. The injury must come from the service provider relying on the misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material. (17 U.S.C. § 512(f).)

Reliance. A notice the platform ignored does not fit the statute, however false it was.

Materiality. The statute reaches only a material misrepresentation.

Copyright only. The statute covers a misrepresentation made under section 512, which sets the takedown procedure for claims of copyright infringement. Its text does not mention a trademark complaint or a report under a marketplace's own policy. A false complaint of that kind has to be challenged under other law, such as trade libel. Our page on marketplace IP complaints covers the platform side.

The knowledge requirement

A takedown notice states that the sender has a good faith belief that the use is not authorized. (17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v).) The Ninth Circuit reads that as a subjective standard. The sender is not required to investigate reasonably before sending. A copyright owner cannot be liable simply because it made an unknowing mistake, even if it acted unreasonably in making it. There must be some actual knowledge of the misrepresentation. (Rossi v. Motion Picture Assn. of America, Inc. (9th Cir. 2004) 391 F.3d 1000, 1004-1005.)

A later Ninth Circuit decision held that a copyright holder must consider fair use before sending a notice. It also held that willful blindness can show knowledge. On that route the plaintiff must show that the sender subjectively believed there was a high probability its claim was wrong and took deliberate actions to avoid learning the truth. (Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (9th Cir. 2016) 815 F.3d 1145, 1153, 1155.) Our page on YouTube copyright strikes discusses that case for video channels.

So the case is about what the sender knew on the day it clicked submit.

Evidence that the sender knew

Knowledge can be shown from circumstances such as these.

• The sender owns nothing. You shot the photographs or wrote the text, and you hold the original files with their dates.
• The sender copied you. Its listing appeared after yours and uses your images, and it then reported yours as the copy.
• The sender was told. An earlier notice was withdrawn after you showed your proof, and the same claim came back.
• The sender had licensed the material to you, or had sold you the goods shown.
• The notice names a work that does not appear in your listing at all.

A sender who held a real copyright and misjudged how far it reached is in a different position. That is a mistake, and honest mistakes are what the subjective standard protects.

What can be recovered

The statute says any damages, and it names costs and attorneys' fees as part of them. For a seller, the core items are the sales lost while the listing was down and the cost of getting it restored. Lost ranking and lost reviews after reinstatement are harder to prove and need sales history on both sides of the gap.

Section 512(f) speaks of damages only. A court order directing the sender to stop depends on the other claims in the case.

A claim under the Copyright Act must be commenced within three years after it accrued. (17 U.S.C. § 507(b).)

Federal court or the Copyright Claims Board

There are two places to bring the claim. One is federal district court. The other is the Copyright Claims Board, a tribunal in the Copyright Office that may decide section 512(f) claims. (17 U.S.C. § 1504(c)(3).)

The Board is simpler to use and limited in what it can award. No party may recover more than $30,000 in one proceeding, not counting any fee award, and each side ordinarily bears its own fees. (17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(1)(D), (e)(3).) The respondent may also opt out, which ends the proceeding. If a party agrees to stop sending notices found to be knowing misrepresentations, the Board writes that into its determination. (17 U.S.C. § 1504(e)(2).) Our page on the Copyright Claims Board explains the trade-offs.

If your company sent the notice

A letter accusing your company of a false takedown deserves a careful answer. The defense is the belief your company held when it sent the notice, so gather the proof of it: the registration or other evidence of ownership, the side-by-side comparison someone made, and who approved the submission.

Two practices follow from the statute. Send copyright notices only for copyright problems, and use the platform's separate channels for trademark or counterfeit complaints. If a notice turns out to be wrong, withdraw it promptly and in writing.

What to bring to the first meeting

• The platform's removal email and any copy of the notice.
• Your proof of authorship or license: original files, drafts, invoices, contracts.
• Screenshots of your listing and the competitor's, with dates.
• Sales reports for the 90 days before the removal and for the period since.
• Any earlier messages between you and the sender.

Frequently asked questions

A competitor filed a false copyright complaint and our product listing was removed. Can we sue them?

Yes, if the evidence shows what the competitor knew. Under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), a person who knowingly and materially misrepresents that material is infringing is liable for the resulting damages, costs, and attorney's fees. A California seller must show the platform relied on the notice and that the competitor actually knew its claim was false or deliberately avoided finding out.

What is a 512(f) claim?

It is the federal claim for misrepresentation in a copyright takedown notice or counter-notice. The person who knowingly made the false statement is liable to those injured when the platform acted on it. California businesses bring it in federal court or before the Copyright Claims Board, and it must be filed within three years.

Is a mistaken takedown notice enough to win?

No. The Ninth Circuit, whose decisions bind federal courts in California, applies a subjective standard. A sender who considered fair use and honestly believed the material infringed is not liable under section 512(f), even if the belief was unreasonable. The plaintiff needs evidence of actual knowledge, or of willful blindness to a high probability that the claim was false.

What damages can we recover for a false DMCA takedown?

The statute allows any damages incurred because the platform relied on the false notice, including costs and attorney's fees. For a California seller that can mean profits lost while the listing was down and the expense of restoring it. Each item must be tied to the removal with evidence, such as sales records.

Our listing was removed for trademark infringement, not copyright. Does section 512(f) still apply to that complaint?

The text of section 512(f) does not reach it. The subsection covers misrepresentations made under 17 U.S.C. § 512, the copyright takedown procedure, and it does not mention trademark complaints. A false trademark or counterfeit report has to be challenged another way, through the platform's appeal process or under other law. For a California business that can include trade libel, interference, or unfair competition claims, depending on the facts.

Talk to a California copyright litigation attorney

If a false notice took down your listing, or your company is accused of sending one, call (909) 235-6116 or contact us online. Kolmogorov Law, P.C. is located in Irvine, California, and takes matters in the federal courts in California. See also our intellectual property litigation page.

This page provides general information about federal copyright law and California law and is not legal advice. Outcomes depend on the notice, the evidence of what the sender knew, and the court.