## Facts

- Stephanie Lenz uploaded a 29-second home video to YouTube showing her children dancing while Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy” was faintly audible for roughly twenty seconds.
- Universal controlled rights in “Let’s Go Crazy” and sent YouTube a DMCA takedown notice under 17 U.S.C. § 512 asserting infringement.
- YouTube removed the video, notified Lenz, and warned that repeated infringement allegations could lead to account termination.
- Lenz submitted a counter-notification asserting the upload was fair use; YouTube restored the video.
- Lenz sued Universal under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), alleging Universal knowingly and materially misrepresented infringement by sending the takedown without considering fair use.
- Universal moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether fair use is “authorized by ... the law” within the DMCA notice requirement that the sender hold a “good faith belief” the use is not authorized under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v).
2. Whether alleging that a copyright holder sent a takedown notice without considering fair use sufficiently pleads a “knowing material misrepresentation” under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).
3. Whether the complaint adequately alleged harm attributable to the asserted misrepresentation.

## Decision

- The court denied Universal’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held that fair use is a use authorized by law, so the DMCA-required “good faith belief” that a use is not authorized must include consideration of fair use.
- The court held that allegations of a takedown sent without considering fair use, or with willful blindness to it, can plausibly state a § 512(f) claim.
- The court found the alleged injuries—including temporary loss of the video, the platform warning of potential account termination, and costs incurred responding to the takedown—sufficient at the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- A DMCA takedown notice must include a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief the challenged use is not authorized “by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v).
- Fair use is authorized by the Copyright Act and therefore falls within “authorized ... by the law” for purposes of § 512(c)(3)(A)(v).
- A copyright holder’s good-faith belief of unauthorized use requires some assessment of whether the use is a lawful fair use before invoking the notice-and-takedown process.
- A plaintiff may state a claim under § 512(f) by plausibly alleging that the sender knowingly made a material misrepresentation of infringement by issuing a takedown notice without considering fair use and that the misrepresentation caused cognizable harm.

## Conclusion

The court allowed a § 512(f) misrepresentation claim to proceed where the plaintiff plausibly alleged that a copyright holder used the DMCA takedown process without considering whether the targeted content was fair use, because fair use is authorized by law and must be part of the sender’s good-faith infringement assessment.


Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2008)