Vietnamese Duo Hit With Injunction After 117,000 Bogus DMCA Claims
While we still lament the fact that the DMCA’s Section 512(f) has no real teeth to punish people for filing bogus DMCA takedown notices, at least some companies are still trying to use it against the most egregious offenders. Last year, Google went after two people in Vietnam, who Google accused of creating at least 65 Google accounts and then using them to send an astounding 117,000 bogus copyright claims.
Apparently, this was the strategy used by the two individuals, Nguyen Van Duc and Pham Van Thien, to try to remove competitors hawking similar t-shirts to the ones they were selling:
Over the last few years and continuing to the present, Defendants—led by two individuals, Defendants Nguyen and Pham—have created at least 65 Google accounts so they could submit thousands of fraudulent notices of copyright infringement against more than 117,000 third-party website URLs. Defendants appear to be connected with websites selling printed t-shirts, and their unlawful conduct aims to remove competing third-party sellers from Google Search results. Defendants have maliciously and illegally exploited Google’s policies and procedures under the DMCA to sabotage and harm their competitors.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the defendants chose to ignore the lawsuit. The court let Google serve them both via email and SMS, and after reviewing all the details, determined that Google kinda had a point about these jackasses. And now, the judge has entered a default judgment, enjoining the defendants from sending more bogus copyright notices.
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants and their agents, employees, successors, and assigns, and all other persons acting in concert with or at the discretion of Defendants, are hereby permanently enjoined from the following:
1. Submitting any notifications of copyright infringement or takedown requests to Google based on false assertions of right of copyright ownership.
2. Creating or attempting to create any Google accounts.
3. Using any Google products or services to promote any of Defendants’ websites or products.
4. Using any Google products or services to harm or attempt to harm any third parties, including without limitation Google’s Search Ads customers.
5. Assisting, aiding, or abetting any other person or entity in engaging or performing any of the activities described in subparagraphs (1) through (4) above.
Some might argue that this is all kinda pointless. The defendants ignored the case entirely. They had to be served via email, and the judgment is a default. But, still, it’s important to call out those who are abusing the legal system in such a way and establish that such activities will not be tolerated. So even if this particular result doesn’t lead to much, it’s a useful signal reminding people who are drawn to such abuses to maybe think again.