[pluma]

And if they do that, they commit a felony.

That is, if it's actually a DMCA claim and if that DMCA claim is patently invalid (trademarks are not covered by copyright, so filing a DMCA claim on trademark grounds would be obviously invalid).

Most of the time the things people call "DMCAs" aren't actual DMCA takedown requests, though. For example YouTube blocks a lot of content based on automated flagging which doesn't even invoke the DMCA -- illegitimate flagging isn't illegal, it's often not even a violation of the ToS, even if it causes lost revenue.

[Natsu]

SFAIK (IANAL), the perjury bit only applies if they claim in a DMCA takedown to represent a copyright holder they do not actually represent, so I'm not clear on what you're saying about a felony.

While I certainly agree that abusing DMCA notices is a bad thing, I have only ever seen a few really egregious filings get punished and even that was marginal. I'm honestly surprised that there hasn't been more pushback. I've seen some pretty idiotic filings...

[pluma]

IANAL either, but filing a DMCA takedown request to claim copyright infringement where there is none is always perjury. You don't have to claim you own something someone else does, you merely have to claim infringement where there is none -- that's far easier to mess up.

So using a DMCA takedown request because of a trademark infringement if there isn't also a copyright infringement would be perjury because you're making a bogus claim. AFAICT this would only matter if both sides ended up pursuing legal action (i.e. the DMCA counter-claim is resisted).

The only example of DMCA abuse being punished I've seen so far is the infamous YouTube drama between thunderf00t and VenomFangX (who ended up reading a prepared statement as part of an out-of-court settlement with tf00t to avoid facing legal consequences).

I think most people aren't willing to actually sue DMCA trolls or are unsure about their actual legal position. It's certainly understandable why a company like Google might be more likely to just follow the rules instead of taking a stand as long as they're not affected directly. And tools like YouTube's automated content claims completely circumvent the need for "content owners" to invoke DMCA and risk legal consequences.

[Natsu]

Well, the only part of a DMCA claim that you swear to be true under penalty of perjury is simply that you are authorized to represent the copyright holder of the work you're claiming is infringed upon.

Not saying you can't get in trouble for anything else, I just haven't seen that yet, other than some out of court settlements (I don't remember yours, but I've heard about others).

I certainly do wish that more people would bring some of the utterly bogus claims to the attention of the relevant courts or bar associations (assuming they bear the signature of an actual lawyer).