[M2Ys4U]

>To be sure, the law does require the person or entity filing the complaint to attest "under penalty of perjury" that the accusation of copyright infringement is true.

It doesn't. It requires them to attest under penalty of perjury that they are authorised to act on behalf the copyright holder, but not to the accuracy of the take-down claim.

[singleshot_]

I’m flummoxed by the fact that anyone would understand “under penalty of perjury” to include an anonymous guy who is under no risk of being prosecuted for perjury. I would have interpreted this (maybe with the aid of a declaratory judgment?) as a defective notice.