Fake DMCA complaints erase Press Gazette pages from Google

A pair of anonymous DMCA notices forced Google to delist two Press Gazette stories—one in March and another in June—showing how spurious copyright claims can erase legitimate pages from search results without immediate notice to the publisher [1].

How the takedowns unfolded

Under the U.S. DMCA, a claimant can ask Google to remove a URL from its index, and Google may comply without verifying the claim’s validity. In March, an anonymous “US Hub” notice led Google to strip a Press Gazette investigation of Clickout Media, along with a follow‑up story in another trade outlet. The June notice, from an unidentified sender, caused a second Clickout Media piece to disappear, this time replacing the targeted content with a month‑old forum post about online casinos. In both cases, the cited “source” bore no relation to the actual reporting, and the original pages remained live on the publisher’s site [1].

Google’s Transparency Report acknowledges that submitters can provide inaccurate information and that the company may not notify site owners before removal. Consequently, a disputed page can stay out of search results for the duration of the counter‑notice process, which legally requires a 10‑ to 14‑business‑day wait after a valid response is received [1].

Broader context and scale

The Press Gazette incidents are part of a wider, hard‑to‑measure campaign of false DMCA filings. Lumen, a research project that archives takedown notices, holds “tens of millions” of notices covering billions of URLs, but the archive does not confirm whether each request was valid or acted upon [1]. Prior research has documented similar abuse: in 2018, fake notices were used to push competitors lower in search rankings, and a Google bug in 2023 let anonymous actors deindex hundreds of articles via the public URL removal tool [1].

Tax Policy Associates notes that many fraudulent notices originate from non‑existent companies—e.g., “LMG Media Group” in the UAE and “Lamar Media Corporation” in the U.S.—yet Google’s system accepts them without checking corporate existence [2]. The same pattern appears in dozens of notices that use identical phrasing such as “completely infringing,” suggesting automated filing by shell entities. Researchers estimate that such campaigns can flood targets with takedowns, making manual counter‑notice filing a daunting task.

What to watch

• Google’s DMCA policy updates – any changes to verification or notification procedures could curb the effectiveness of bogus notices.
• Lumen notice trends – spikes in filings from newly created “media corporation” entities may signal coordinated campaigns.
• Press Gazette’s follow‑up reporting – further removals or restorations will illustrate how quickly Google processes disputed notices.

These cases underscore a structural weakness: the DMCA’s low barrier to filing enables actors to weaponize copyright claims against competitors, while the lack of automated detection leaves publishers to discover removals only after traffic drops or manual checks. The open question remains whether legislative or platform‑level reforms can balance legitimate copyright protection with safeguards against abuse.