512(f) Doesn’t Support Preliminary Injunction–BViral v. TheSoul
TheSoul runs a Facebook account that seeks to publish viral content, much of which it purports to license. BViral is a video licensing organization with a 65k video portfolio.
TheSoul claims that BViral sent 512(c)(3) takedown notices to Facebook targeting TheSoul, even if BViral didn’t own the videos in question and TheSoul putatively had licenses to the content. Collectively, BViral’s takedown notices allegedly cost TheSoul over $200k due to video demonetization and another $200k because Facebook (allegedly) shadowbanned TheSoul. TheSoul also claims it lost $12k from periods of times Facebook blocked its uploads. TheSoul sought:
a preliminary injunction that would: (1) require BVIRAL and Burden to engage in a good faith in a meet and confer before sending any DMCA notices to Facebook or any other platform regarding any content posted by TheSoul; (2) require that in the event the meet and confer is unsuccessful, BVIRAL and Burden obtain a Court order before sending DMCA Notices to Facebook or any other platform; and (3) require BVIRAL to “rescind all Sham DMCA notices already submitted against TheSoul with Facebook”
[Note: I don’t think a court is ever going to grant requests 1 or 2 because they essentially repeal 512(c)(3) for BViral. There is no statutory “good faith meet-and-confer” prerequisite to sending 512(c)(3) notices; and requiring BViral to get court permission to send 512(c)(3) notices negates 512(c)’s design as an extrajudicial process for copyright owners.]
“Here, the Court’s analysis begins and ends with irreparable harm.” TheSoul argued that the court should assume irreparable injury in copyright cases, but the court says that argument is foreclosed by the eBay v. MercExchage case.
The court otherwise wasn’t convinced by TheSoul’s showing of irreparable harm:
Although TheSoul claims that the precise amount of revenue loss will be difficult to calculate, is has, in fact calculated the lost revenue caused by Facebook’s response to the takedown notices. Although TheSoul also claims it will lose goodwill with customers and Facebook, its does not provide any evidence that loss of goodwill will be reflected by anything other than a reduction in page views which in turn will result in lost revenue, all of which is subject to reasonable calculation and compensable with money damages. TheSoul’s claims that Facebook’s actions in response to the takedown notices will “hinder momentum in the industry and ability to compete with others in the market” is not substantiated with any explanation or evidence warranting a finding of irreparable harm.
If so, this could end up being another example of the 512(f)’s jurisprudential wrecking ball. The court won’t grant an injunction because 512(f) allows damages awards; but 512(f) almost never yields those damages. Simultaneously, 512(f) preempts state law claims that might provide other relief for a malicious takedown notice attack. Combine those two facts, and 512(f) plaintiffs are left with minimal or no recourse in practice.
Case Citation: SocialCoaster, Inc. v. ADME (Cy) Ltd., 2025 WL 2619149 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 10, 2025).
Prior Posts on Section 512(f)
* In 512(f), the “F” Stands for “Futility”–Shaffer v. Kavarnos
* Does Anyone Still Care About NFTs? (Yuga Labs, LLC v. Ripps) — Guest Blog Post
* Viral DRM Awarded Damages for Its 512(f) Claims, But At What Cost?
* Big YouTube Channel Gets TRO Against Being Targeted by DMCA Copyright Takedown Notices–Invisible Narratives v. Next Level Apps
* The Competition Between Temu and Shein Moves Into a Courtroom–Whaleco v. Shein
* Copyright Battles Over City Council Videos
* Record Label Sends Bogus Takedown Notice, Defeats 512(f) Claim Anyway–White v. UMG
* Plaintiffs Make Some Progress in 512(f) Cases
* 512(f) Doesn’t Restrict Competitive Gaming of Search Results–Source Capital v. Barrett Financial
* 512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership Dispute–Shande v. Zoox
* Surprise! Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Bored Ape Yacht Club v. Ripps
* You’re a Fool if You Think You Can Win a 512(f) Case–Security Police and Fire Professionals v. Maritas
* 512(f) Plaintiff Must Pay $91k to the Defense–Digital Marketing v. McCandless
* Anti-Circumvention Takedowns Aren’t Covered by 512(f)–Yout v. RIAA
* 11th Circuit UPHOLDS a 512(f) Plaintiff Win on Appeal–Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports
* Court Mistakenly Thinks Copyright Owners Have a Duty to Police Infringement–Sunny Factory v. Chen
* Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Moonbug v. Babybus
* A 512(f) Plaintiff Wins at Trial! 
* Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court
* 512(f) Preempts Tortious Interference Claim–Copy Me That v. This Old Gal
* 512(f) Claim Against Robo-Notice Sender Can Proceed–Enttech v. Okularity
* Copyright Plaintiffs Can’t Figure Out What Copyrights They Own, Court Says ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
* A 512(f) Case Leads to a Rare Damages Award (on a Default Judgment)–California Beach v. Du
* 512(f) Claim Survives Motion to Dismiss–Brandyn Love v. Nuclear Blast America
* 512(f) Claim Fails in the 11th Circuit–Johnson v. New Destiny Christian Center
* Court Orders Rightsowner to Withdraw DMCA Takedown Notices Sent to Amazon–Beyond Blond v. Heldman
* Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Ningbo Mizhihe v Doe
* Video Excerpts Qualify as Fair Use (and Another 512(f) Claim Fails)–Hughes v. Benjamin
* How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? (Spoiler: Not Well)
* Another Section 512(f) Case Fails–ISE v. Longarzo
* Another 512(f) Case Fails–Handshoe v. Perret
* A DMCA Section 512(f) Case Survives Dismissal–ISE v. Longarzo
* DMCA’s Unhelpful 512(f) Preempts Helpful State Law Claims–Stevens v. Vodka and Milk
* Section 512(f) Complaint Survives Motion to Dismiss–Johnson v. New Destiny Church
* ‘Reaction’ Video Protected By Fair Use–Hosseinzadeh v. Klein
* 9th Circuit Sides With Fair Use in Dancing Baby Takedown Case–Lenz v. Universal
* Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership
* It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Steiner
* Vague Takedown Notice Targeting Facebook Page Results in Possible Liability–CrossFit v. Alvies
* Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Tuteur v. Crosley-Corcoran
* 17 USC 512(f) Is Dead–Lenz v. Universal Music
* 512(f) Plaintiff Can’t Get Discovery to Back Up His Allegations of Bogus Takedowns–Ouellette v. Viacom
* Updates on Transborder Copyright Enforcement Over “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer”–Shropshire v. Canning
* 17 USC 512(f) Preempts State Law Claims Over Bogus Copyright Takedown Notices–Amaretto v. Ozimals
* 17 USC 512(f) Claim Against “Twilight” Studio Survives Motion to Dismiss–Smith v. Summit Entertainment
* Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v. UMG
* Copyright Takedown Notice Isn’t Actionable Unless There’s an Actual Takedown–Amaretto v. Ozimals
* Second Life Ordered to Stop Honoring a Copyright Owner’s Takedown Notices–Amaretto Ranch Breedables v. Ozimals
* Another Copyright Owner Sent a Defective Takedown Notice and Faced 512(f) Liability–Rosen v. HSI
* Furniture Retailer Enjoined from Sending eBay VeRO Notices–Design Furnishings v. Zen Path
* Disclosure of the Substance of Privileged Communications via Email, Blog, and Chat Results in Waiver — Lenz v. Universal
* YouTube Uploader Can’t Sue Sender of Mistaken Takedown Notice–Cabell v. Zimmerman
* Rare Ruling on Damages for Sending Bogus Copyright Takedown Notice–Lenz v. Universal
* 512(f) Claim Dismissed on Jurisdictional Grounds–Project DoD v. Federici
* Biosafe-One v. Hawks Dismissed
* Michael Savage Takedown Letter Might Violate 512(f)–Brave New Media v. Weiner
* Fair Use – It’s the Law (for what it’s worth)–Lenz v. Universal
* Copyright Owner Enjoined from Sending DMCA Takedown Notices–Biosafe-One v. Hawks
* New(ish) Report on 512 Takedown Notices
* Can 512(f) Support an Injunction? Novotny v. Chapman
* Allegedly Wrong VeRO Notice of Claimed Infringement Not Actionable–Dudnikov v. MGA Entertainment
