The latest bizarre twists in the on-going legal war between Christopher “Denver Metro Audits” Cordova and Jonathan “Frauditor Troll” Huneault may result in the awarding of and mandatory payment of tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees by Huneault in the lawsuit.
At issue is the filing of the counter claim made by attorney “Superstar” Steve Vondran on behalf of Huneault last week. Of the multiple claims, count three stands out as it made the claim that Cordova maliciously used the DMCA takedown process in order to maliciously damage Huneault’s business.
The filing follows Huneault’s new stated belief that Cordova granted him a perpetual and permanent license to use his works and instead of revoking the license, Cordova entered into the DMCA counter notice process to attack Huneault.
The counter claim states the following:
“Plaintiffs intentionally engaged in conduct designed to interfere with Counterclaimant’s economic relationships by submitting multiple copyright takedown notices and causing copyright strikes to be issued against Counterclaimant’s channel.
Plaintiffs’ conduct was wrongful and independently unlawful because it consisted of knowing and material misrepresentations in copyright takedown notices, submission of takedowns without a good-faith fair use analysis, and misuse of the copyright enforcement process for purposes unrelated to legitimate copyright protection.
Plaintiffs knew or should have known that the submission of multiple copyright strikes would foreseeably result in removal of Counterclaimant’s videos, suppression of channel visibility, disruption of monetization, loss of advertiser confidence, and termination or withdrawal of sponsorship opportunities.
Plaintiffs’ conduct in submitting the copyright strikes directly disrupted Counterclaimant’s existing and prospective economic relationships, including relationships with advertisers and sponsors who rely on stable content availability, consistent posting, and platform compliance.
As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs’ actions, Counterclaimant suffered financial harm, including loss of advertising revenue, loss of sponsorship opportunities, diminished channel growth, and damage to business goodwill and expectancy.
Plaintiffs’ intentional interference was a substantial factor in causing Counterclaimant’s economic harm and was not justified by any legitimate business or copyright enforcement interest.”
Huneault’s filing brought a quick rebuke from Cordova’s attorney, That Randall S. “The Unhinged Attorney” Newman, who filed a motion to dismiss claim three on anti-SLAPP grounds on Tuesday.
Newman’s motion reaffirmed Corodva’s position that no such licensing deal or permission existed between the pair. Updating our own coverage, Cordova asserts that suggestions of using certain videos to feature on Huneault’s show were just suggestions and not a license. Furthermore, the statement that he had no intention of suing Huneault was in reference to Huneault’s t-shirt sales that featured the likeness of Cordova and not for Huneault’s use of Cordova’s videos.
The attorney also noted that the Digital Millenium Copyright Notice was set up to handle disputes over copyright and claims of copyright infringement. Filing a DMCA takedown notice is legal is step one of a legal process. According to Newman, filing a counter claim stating that it was illegal to take part in a legally protected activity would be subject to anti-SLAPP laws.
In his filing, Attorney Newman wrote:
“Here, Defendants expressly identify the alleged “wrongful” conduct underlying the Tortious Interference Claim as Plaintiff’s submission of DMCA takedown notices to YouTube. (Counterclaim ¶¶ 62–72). Defendants do not allege any conduct independent of the DMCA enforcement process; rather, they assert that the DMCA takedowns were “wrongful” because they were allegedly made in bad faith, without a proper fair use analysis, and for improper purposes. (Counterclaim ¶ 67). That theory fails as a matter of law.
Where the allegedly wrongful conduct consists solely of invoking a statutory enforcement mechanism, California courts require a party to identify a legal violation independent of the enforcement activity itself. Allegations that a defendant misused a legal process, asserted rights aggressively, or acted with improper motive do not suffice. Korea Supply, 29 Cal. 4th at 1159.
Defendants’ Tortious Interference Claim attempts to satisfy this requirement by pointing to alleged misrepresentations in Plaintiff’s DMCA takedown notices. But Congress has already defined the exclusive legal standard governing such conduct in 17 U.S.C. § 512(f). As a result, any alleged “wrongfulness” arising from DMCA takedown notices must be adjudicated under that statute and cannot independently support a statelaw tort claim. See Complex Media, Inc. v. X17, Inc., 2019 WL 2896117, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2019).
Indeed, the Counterclaim itself confirms that the alleged wrongdoing is not independent of copyright law, but derivative of it. The Tortious Interference Claim incorporates by reference the same factual allegations underlying the § 512(f) claim, including alleged misrepresentations in takedown notices and misuse of the DMCA process. (Counterclaim ¶ 62).
That pleading choice is fatal because the Tortious Interference Claim does not, and cannot, identify any independently wrongful conduct separate from Plaintiff’s protected and statutorily governed DMCA enforcement activity. Therefore, Defendants cannot establish a probability of prevailing on the Tortious Interference Claim. The claim therefore also fails at prong two of the anti-SLAPP analysis and must be stricken pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16.”
California’s strict anti-SLAPP laws are designed to protect individuals from lawsuits where someone else is attempting to stifle their ability to do a protected activity. In this case, Newman contends that the filing of the DMCA takedown notices is a legally protected activity that Vondran is attempting to quash through a lawsuit he knows he can’t win.
Also at stake here is that if an anti-SLAPP motion is successful, the defense is awarded mandatory attorney’s fees that could cost Huneault tens of thousands of dollars. Huneault is funding his lawsuit primarily through donations from his fans, a setback of tens of thousands of dollars could be devastating to his ability to finance his defense.
Concern for this was reflected in a late in the day filing by Vondran that attempted to withdraw the claim and blamed attorney Newman for not meeting with him to tell him that he was going to file an anti-SLAPP motion.
Attorney Vondran wrote:
“The anti-SLAPP theory was raised for the first time by motion. Prior to the filing of the Special Motion to Strike, opposing counsel did not meet and confer or otherwise raise the applicability of California Code of Civil Procedure §425.16 or related preemption or litigation-privilege arguments. The standing order for all judges in the Northern District calls for parties to honor the rules of professional conduct. These rules point to meeting and conferring to avoid necessary motion practice. This was not done here.
Had counsel simply picked up the phone, this claim would have been dismissed without motion practice, but appears to have been done for the sole purpose of avoiding meet and confer requirements to try to seek legal fees that could easily have been prevented. Allowing dismissal here avoids an unnecessary ruling on constitutional or state-law issues and prevents the inequitable result of fee-shifting absent any merits determination. Plaintiff acted promptly upon recognizing the procedural posture, and dismissal does not reflect gamesmanship or an attempt to evade an adverse ruling.”
Vondran went on to argue that Newman would not be entitled to attorney’s fees with the withdrawal, despite the awarding of fees for a withdrawal being common practice, because of his lack of a meet and confer in violation of local rules.
Attorney Newman is expected to file a response to Vondran’s late evening withdrawal of the claim later on Wednesday.
Newman’s initial anti-SLAPP motion is tentatively scheduled for a hearing on February 17, 2026.
Huneault’s Help us Fight this anti-free speech retaliation lawsuit GoFundMe campaign took in $6.00 USD in new donations on Wednesday. It fell to SeanPaul “Long Island Audit” Reyes’s Help Me Fight These Unlawful Charges & Injustice fund, which took in $10.00 to take the fundraising crown for the day.
No other campaigns that we follow received donations for the day.
