This case involves “Skibidi Toilet,” an animated video series that, as its title implies, targets a Gen Alpha audience. No, I had never heard of it before today; and no, I don’t plan to watch any shows with either the words “Skibidi” or “Toilet” in their titles. 👴 The image accompanying this post comes from the series–if it’s disturbing to you, you must not be Gen Alpha.Invisible Narratives claims to own the copyrights and trademarks to the series. Invisible Narratives posts the content to its YouTube channel entitled “Dafuq!? Boom!” with over 18B views.
Invisible Narratives claims the following:
Next Level fraudulently obtained copyright registrations, filed trademark applications, registered the skibiditoilet.com domain (“Infringing Site”), and released applications on Apple and GooglePlay with the name Skibidi Toilet included. Next Level unlawfully submitted takedown notices to YouTube under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA Takedown Notices”) which claimed that Season 25 of Skibidi Toilet contained copyright content owned by Next Level.
The complaint portrays this as a sophisticated attempt to extort Invisible Narratives by trying to position Next Level as the rightful owner of the content and thereby disrupt Invisible Narratives–a type of hijacking of IP rights. Invisible Narratives asserts that all of Next Level’s IP claims are fraudulent. (The complaint claims that Next Level has done a similar attempted IP hijacking of another IP owner’s rights).
If I’m reading the complaint properly, Invisible Narratives sent takedown notices over Next Level’s purportedly fraudulent uploads, and Next Level retailiated by sending its own takedown notices and submitting 512(g) counter-notices (putback notices) to preserve its uploads.
Based on Next Level’s actions, YouTube blocked access to Invisible Narratives’ season 25 uploads and issued a copyright strike against the channel. Next Level threatened to send more takedown notices to YouTube which, if successful, would take the entire channel offline (see, e.g., this demand “letter”). Invisible Narratives sought an ex parte TRO to prevent that from happening, which the court grants.
The court relies on 512(f) as the basis of the TRO: “Invisible Narratives has presented evidence that Next Level was neither the original creator of Skibidi Toilet nor the lawful copyright owner of Skibidi Toilet characters. Further, YouTube disabled access to Season 25 of Skibidi Toilet in response to Next Level’s DCMA Takedown Notice, which caused Invisible Narratives to lose streaming revenue from advertising placement.”
The court also says that further takedown notices would irreparably harm Invisible Narratives: “Should YouTube disable the Boom Channel or restrict Skibidi Toilet content, Invisible Narratives will lose streaming revenue from advertisement placement. Invisible Narratives also asserts that YouTube’s removal of Skibidi Toilet content will result in a loss of goodwill and damage to Invisible Narratives’ reputation.” Many courts would take the position that money damages can repair these damages.
With respect to the balance of hardships, the court says “Next Level will not experience meaningful hardship as a result of the TRO because Next Level will only be enjoined from misappropriating Invisible Narratives’ intellectual property.” This depends on the court’s assessment of who the true copyright owners are, and the court still hasn’t heard both sides of this story.
With respect to the public interest, “the public has an interest in avoiding the misuse of intellectual property laws, including the DMCA.” 🎯 PREACH!
As a sign of how convinced the court is by Invisible Narratives’ allegations, the court doesn’t order it to post any bond at all. The court enjoins Next Level pending a PI hearing on March 3.
* * *
The DMCA notice-and-takedown scheme was never intended to provide final resolution to copyright owners. It was only intended to provide an extra-judicial fast lane when service providers could clearly resolve the matter. All other disputes were intended to be directed back into the court system for more rigorous judicial review, as is happening here.
Weirdly, the opinion doesn’t mention 512(g) at all, which was Congress’ tool for uploaders to extrajudicially dispute bogus takedown notices and kick disputes over to court. YouTube usually honors 512(g) putback notices, but the complaint (para. 60) says that Invisible Narratives submitted 512(g) counter-notifications without success.
The TRO language doesn’t purport to apply to YouTube, nor could it unless YouTube had also been named a defendant. I hope we’ll hear YouTube’s side of this story about why it didn’t honor the putback notices. Maybe YouTube was paralyzed by the dueling takedown notices from each side? You would think YouTube would be very cautious about blocking a channel with 18B+ views.
This case is a rare victory for a 512(f) plaintiff, though it’s not the first time 512(f) has supported an injunction against takedown notices (see, e.g., this case). As usual, 512(f) courtroom wins are most likely when the defense isn’t present.
Case Citation: Invisible Narratives LLC v. Next Level Apps Technology FZCO, 2025 WL 551866 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2025). The complaint.
* * *
Prior Posts on Section 512(f)
* 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! 
–Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports
* 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
