Platform Accountability for Repeat Infringers
512(i) Requirement: To qualify for DMCA safe harbor, platforms must "adopt and reasonably implement... a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders... who are repeat infringers." Platforms that fail to terminate known repeat infringers may lose safe harbor entirely.

The DMCA's safe harbors are not unconditional. Section 512(i) creates an affirmative obligation for platforms to police repeat infringers. When platforms fail to enforce their own policies against users who repeatedly upload infringing content, they open themselves to direct liability for every act of infringement on their platform.

The 512(i) Requirements
Requirement What It Means How Platforms Fail
Adopt a Policy Platform must have a written repeat infringer policy No policy exists, or policy is hidden from users
Reasonably Implement Policy must be actually enforced, not just on paper Policy exists but accounts are never terminated
Inform Users Users must be notified the policy exists Terms of service don't mention repeat infringer consequences
Terminate in Appropriate Circumstances When user is identified as repeat infringer, take action Users with 10+ strikes remain active
What Constitutes a "Repeat Infringer"?

The DMCA does not define how many incidents make someone a "repeat infringer." Courts have given platforms some discretion, but that discretion is not unlimited:

Common Platform Strike Systems
1

First Strike - Warning

Content removed, user warned. No account restrictions. Strike may expire after period (often 90 days to 1 year).

2

Second Strike - Restrictions

Content removed, temporary restrictions on uploading or features. Final warning issued.

3

Third Strike - Termination

Account terminated. User banned from creating new accounts. Content permanently removed.

Strike Expiration Problem: Many platforms allow strikes to "expire" after a period. A user with 10 takedowns over 5 years might have 0 active strikes. This can frustrate repeat infringer enforcement. Document the total history, not just active strikes.
Landmark Case: BMG v. Cox Communications

BMG Rights Management v. Cox Communications (4th Cir. 2018)

Cox Communications, an ISP, received over 150,000 infringement notices about specific subscribers. Despite having a repeat infringer policy, Cox employees were instructed to keep paying customers connected and not terminate accounts. Internal communications showed Cox prioritized revenue over copyright compliance.

The Fourth Circuit held that Cox's failure to reasonably implement its repeat infringer policy meant it lost DMCA safe harbor protection. Cox was held liable for contributory infringement.

Outcome: $1 billion jury verdict against Cox (later reduced). Clear precedent that paper policies without actual enforcement strip safe harbor.

When to Demand Repeat Infringer Termination
Evidence to Document
Evidence Type Purpose How to Preserve
All DMCA notices sent Proves knowledge of infringement Keep copies of every notice with timestamps
Platform acknowledgments Proves platform received notices Screenshot confirmation emails/messages
Content removal confirmations Proves validity of takedowns Document each removal
User re-upload activity Shows pattern of repeat infringement Screenshot new uploads with dates
User account information Confirms same user responsible Document username, profile URL, any identifying info
Platform's stated policy Shows policy exists but not enforced Screenshot terms of service/copyright policy
Sample Demand Letters
Sample 1: Demand for Repeat Infringer Termination
[Your Name / Law Firm] [Address] [Email / Phone] [Date] VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL [Platform Name] [DMCA Agent / Legal Department] [Address] Re: Demand for Termination of Repeat Infringer Under 17 U.S.C. 512(i) Infringing Account: [Username/Account URL] Prior DMCA Notices: [List Reference Numbers/Dates] Dear [Platform] Legal/Trust & Safety Team: I represent [Copyright Owner], whose copyrighted works have been repeatedly infringed by the user account [Username] on your platform. Despite [Number] valid DMCA takedown notices over the past [Time Period], this user continues to upload infringing content and remains an active account holder on [Platform]. DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF REPEAT INFRINGEMENT The following is a summary of DMCA takedown notices we have filed against this user: 1. [Date] - DMCA Notice for "[Content Title]" - Removed [Date] 2. [Date] - DMCA Notice for "[Content Title]" - Removed [Date] 3. [Date] - DMCA Notice for "[Content Title]" - Removed [Date] 4. [Date] - DMCA Notice for "[Content Title]" - Removed [Date] 5. [Date] - DMCA Notice for "[Content Title]" - Removed [Date] [Continue as applicable] Each of these notices was acknowledged by [Platform] and resulted in content removal, confirming the validity of our infringement claims. Despite this clear pattern of repeat infringement, the account [Username] remains active. 512(i) REQUIREMENT Section 512(i)(1)(A) of the DMCA requires that, to maintain safe harbor eligibility, an online service provider must have "adopted and reasonably implemented... a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers." [Username] is unquestionably a repeat infringer under any reasonable interpretation. [He/She/They] has been the subject of [Number] valid DMCA takedowns, spanning [Time Period], for infringement of [Copyright Owner]'s works. This is precisely the circumstance contemplated by 512(i). Your stated [Copyright Policy / Terms of Service] provides: "[Quote platform's repeat infringer policy if available]." Despite this policy, [Username] remains an active user. DEMAND We hereby demand that [Platform]: 1. Immediately terminate the account [Username/URL] pursuant to your repeat infringer policy; 2. Permanently ban this user from creating new accounts on [Platform]; 3. Preserve all records relating to this user's account, including registration information, upload history, and any monetization data, for potential use in litigation; 4. Confirm in writing within seven (7) days that the account has been terminated. CONSEQUENCES OF INACTION [Platform]'s failure to terminate known repeat infringers despite documented, repeated infringement notices raises serious questions about whether [Platform] is "reasonably implementing" its repeat infringer policy as required by 512(i). As established in BMG Rights Management v. Cox Communications, 881 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2018), a platform that fails to reasonably implement its repeat infringer policy loses DMCA safe harbor protection. Without safe harbor, [Platform] faces direct liability for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement for every act of infringement by this user and potentially others. [Copyright Owner] reserves all rights to pursue [Platform] directly if this known repeat infringer is not terminated. Please confirm termination by [Date - 7 days]. Sincerely, [Attorney Name] Counsel for [Copyright Owner] Enclosures: - Copies of all prior DMCA takedown notices - Screenshots showing account remains active - Copy of [Platform]'s repeat infringer policy
Sample 2: Safe Harbor Challenge - Pattern of Non-Enforcement
[Your Name / Law Firm] [Address] [Email / Phone] [Date] VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND EMAIL [Platform Name] General Counsel [Corporate Headquarters Address] Re: Demand Regarding Systematic Failure to Implement Repeat Infringer Policy Loss of DMCA Safe Harbor Eligibility Under 17 U.S.C. 512(i) Dear General Counsel: This firm represents [Copyright Owner], a [description - e.g., major music publisher, film studio, independent creator] whose works are persistently infringed on [Platform]. This letter addresses [Platform]'s systematic failure to implement its repeat infringer policy, which jeopardizes [Platform]'s eligibility for DMCA safe harbor protection. PATTERN OF NON-ENFORCEMENT Over the past [Time Period], [Copyright Owner] has submitted [Number] valid DMCA takedown notices to [Platform] regarding infringement of [its/their] copyrighted works. These notices have targeted [Number] unique user accounts. Of these accounts: - [Number] accounts had 3 or more takedowns against them - [Number] accounts had 5 or more takedowns against them - [Number] accounts had 10 or more takedowns against them Despite this documented pattern, [Platform] has terminated [Number] of these accounts - representing [X]% of clear repeat infringers. Specific examples: Account: [Username 1] Takedowns: [Number] over [Time Period] Status: Still active Most recent infringing upload: [Date] Account: [Username 2] Takedowns: [Number] over [Time Period] Status: Still active Most recent infringing upload: [Date] [Continue with additional examples] 512(i) SAFE HARBOR REQUIREMENTS The DMCA safe harbor is conditioned on platforms meeting the requirements of Section 512(i). A platform must: 1. ADOPT a repeat infringer policy; 2. REASONABLY IMPLEMENT that policy; and 3. INFORM users of the policy. [Platform]'s copyright policy states: "[Quote their policy]." However, the data above demonstrates that [Platform] is not "reasonably implementing" this policy. Accounts with [5/10/15+] takedowns remain active and continue to infringe. This is not a reasonable implementation - it is a paper policy designed to claim safe harbor without actually protecting copyright owners. The Fourth Circuit's decision in BMG v. Cox is directly on point: "a service provider that has a repeat infringer policy but declines to implement it meaningfully" loses safe harbor protection. CONSEQUENCES Without 512(i) compliance, [Platform] cannot claim safe harbor under 512(c) for user-stored content. This means [Platform] faces potential liability for: - Contributory infringement for every infringing upload by known repeat infringers - Vicarious infringement if [Platform] profits from infringement and has ability to control it - Statutory damages of up to $150,000 per willfully infringed work Given the volume of infringement on [Platform], exposure could reach [significant damages figure]. DEMAND We demand that [Platform]: 1. Immediately terminate all user accounts with [3] or more valid DMCA takedowns, consistent with your stated policy and industry standards; 2. Implement automated systems to track repeat infringement and enforce termination thresholds; 3. Provide [Copyright Owner] with a written report within 30 days identifying: - Total number of accounts terminated for repeat infringement in past 12 months - Current number of active accounts with 3+ takedowns - Changes being implemented to enforcement procedures 4. Meet with [Copyright Owner]'s representatives to discuss ongoing compliance. If [Platform] does not demonstrate meaningful commitment to 512(i) compliance within 30 days, [Copyright Owner] will pursue all available remedies, including legal action against [Platform] directly for infringement occurring on accounts that should have been terminated. This matter deserves attention at the highest levels of [Platform]'s legal and trust & safety teams. Very truly yours, [Attorney Name] Counsel for [Copyright Owner] cc: [Platform] Board of Directors [Platform] Chief Legal Officer
Sample 3: Demand After Account Termination Evasion
[Your Name / Law Firm] [Address] [Email / Phone] [Date] VIA EMAIL [Platform Name] - Trust & Safety [DMCA Agent Email] Re: Repeat Infringer Ban Evasion - Urgent Action Required Original Account: [Username/URL] (terminated [Date]) New Account: [New Username/URL] (created [Date]) Dear Trust & Safety Team: I represent [Copyright Owner], on whose behalf I previously demanded termination of the repeat infringer account [Original Username]. That account was terminated on [Date] after [Number] valid DMCA takedowns. We have now identified that this same infringer has created a new account, [New Username], and resumed uploading infringing copies of [Copyright Owner]'s works. EVIDENCE OF BAN EVASION The following evidence confirms [New Username] is the same person as the terminated [Original Username]: 1. Same infringing content: [New Username] has uploaded [Number] of the same works previously removed from [Original Username], including [specific titles]. 2. Same upload pattern: Both accounts uploaded [description of pattern - e.g., same type of content, same posting times, same file naming conventions]. 3. Profile similarities: [Describe any profile similarities - same avatar, similar bio, linked accounts, etc.] 4. Timing: [New Username] was created on [Date], just [Number] days after [Original Username] was terminated. 5. [Any additional identifying information] PLATFORM OBLIGATIONS Ban evasion is a serious violation of [Platform]'s terms of service and undermines the repeat infringer policy required by 512(i). A terminated repeat infringer who creates new accounts to continue infringing demonstrates the most egregious disregard for copyright law. To maintain safe harbor eligibility, [Platform] must take effective action to prevent banned users from simply creating new accounts and continuing to infringe. DEMAND We demand immediate action: 1. Terminate the account [New Username/URL] immediately; 2. Implement IP-based or device-based restrictions to prevent this infringer from creating additional accounts; 3. Remove all content uploaded by [New Username] as it is presumptively infringing given the user's documented history; 4. Preserve all account information for [New Username] including registration data, IP addresses, and device identifiers for potential litigation. Given that this is a known, documented repeat infringer engaged in active ban evasion, we expect immediate action - not another round of three strikes. Please confirm action taken within 48 hours. Sincerely, [Attorney Name] Counsel for [Copyright Owner] Attachments: - Prior termination demand and confirmation - Evidence of new account creating same infringements - Comparison screenshots
Frequently Asked Questions
Section 512(i) requires online service providers to adopt, reasonably implement, and inform users of a policy for terminating accounts of repeat copyright infringers in appropriate circumstances. This is a threshold requirement for DMCA safe harbor protection. Without such a policy - or without actually enforcing it - platforms cannot claim safe harbor and become directly liable for user infringement. The policy must be more than paper; it must be actually implemented.
The DMCA does not specify a number. Courts have held that platforms have some discretion in determining what constitutes a repeat infringer and when termination is appropriate. Most major platforms (YouTube, Facebook, TikTok) use a three-strike policy. However, a platform that never terminates accounts despite numerous valid takedown notices - regardless of the number - may lose safe harbor protection. The key is reasonable implementation, not a magic number.
Yes. In BMG v. Cox Communications, the Fourth Circuit held that Cox lost DMCA safe harbor because it failed to reasonably implement its repeat infringer policy. Despite receiving over 150,000 infringement notices, Cox rarely terminated subscriber accounts. The court found that having a policy on paper while instructing employees not to enforce it did not satisfy 512(i). This exposes the platform to contributory and vicarious liability for all infringement on its service.
Document every DMCA takedown notice you have filed against the user, including dates, content removed, and platform responses. Keep records showing the same account repeatedly uploading infringing content. Screenshots, URLs, platform confirmation emails, and correspondence with the platform all serve as evidence. The more documented instances with clear timestamps and platform acknowledgments, the stronger your demand for termination. Also document if the user creates new accounts after termination.
If a platform refuses to terminate a known repeat infringer despite documented requests, they may lose safe harbor protection under 512(i). You can then pursue the platform directly for contributory or vicarious copyright infringement, in addition to suing the actual infringer. Document the platform's refusal or non-response carefully. Consider whether the platform's failure is systemic (affecting many copyright owners) or specific to your situation, as this affects litigation strategy.
Many platforms allow strikes to expire after a period (often 90 days to one year). This means a user with 10 takedowns over several years might have zero "active" strikes. However, the DMCA looks at whether someone is a "repeat infringer" - not whether their strikes have expired under a platform's internal policy. When demanding termination, document the total history of infringement, not just active strikes. A user with a long pattern of infringement is still a repeat infringer regardless of strike expiration.