On June 3, 2025, Christopher “Denver Meto Audits” Cordova filed a lawsuit against the YouTuber known as Frauditor Troll, who he believes is named “Jonathan Huneault,” in the Northern District Court of California.
Cordova is represented by attorney Randall S. Newman, who lists a New York address in the lawsuit but is licensed in both New York and California. Newman has since started a YouTube presence and has appeared on a couple of Cordova’s live streams defending the lawsuit.
The lawsuit is filed in the Northern District of California as that’s where YouTube’s user agreement says all lawsuits involving the service must be filed.
We know that Jose “Chille” DeCastro once filed suit against Kate Peter, Josh Abrams, YouTube, YouTube workers, YouTube creators and everything else under the sun in Massachusetts. He shouldn’t have due to the same agreement he signed with YouTube by using their service. YouTube fought him over it, and eventually that case was dismissed because he’s DeCastro and never got around to actually sating what YouTube did wrong to be sued.
Attorney Newman also has the same listed address as Frauditor Troll on the lawsuit but specified a specific suite number. They use the same service in New York to provide a business address. Frauditor Troll, for whatever reason, chose not to list his suite number in the counterclaim he filed when he was notified of the YouTube copyright claim by Cordova.
Still with us?
The original video, “ANOTHER CHAD EXPOSED!!! Worthless Denver Cops….ASSAULTED!!!” went up on Cordova’s channel back on March 16, 2022. According to the complaint, it’s done around 66,000 views since creation.
Frauditor Troll did a reaction video on December 2, 2022, entitled “Frauditor DMA Gets Confronted by Angry Citizen (Hilarious).” According to the complaint, the video did 75,000 views or so in its lifetime. It’s currently unavailable.
Cordova put in a Digital Millennium Copyright Act complaint against the video on YouTube in early June of 2023. Troll counterclaimed on June 6, 2023. As part of his counterclaim, Troll provided the New York address, said his name was “Jonathan Huneault” and agreed to be served under that name at that address should Cordova sue him.
Because Cordova didn’t sue Troll in YouTube’s set time limit for the dispute, Troll’s video was restored, and Troll claimed it was a victory.
Cordova quietly regrouped.
A video posted to YouTube is subject to YouTube’s rules and regulations. However, when YouTube makes a ruling, such as siding with someone because a lawsuit wasn’t filed in a predetermined time limit, it does not strip the work of legal protection, or the copyright holder gives up the right to take future action to protect their work.
Cordova, like any creator, holds the copyright to their work when the work is created but he must register it to take legal action on copyright grounds.
In order to protect the copyright in the United States, Cordova needed to pay to register the copyright with the United States Copyright Office. It’s roughly $65.00 to protect a specific work and takes a while to get through the system.
Cordova started the registration process on February 6, 2024, and eventually the process completed, giving Cordova the opportunity to move forward in the court system to protect his copyright.
He did so, by filing the lawsuit against Troll on June 3, 2025.
And that’s when things got weird.
Christopher Cordova is a controversial figure. His personality is off-putting. His views on defending the display of public display of pornography, his views on women, his dancing skills, his brashness and his sheer upsetting quality that makes some people want to smack him just by looking at him… mean nothing.
He still holds the registered copyright on his work and has the legal ability to defend his work.
Frauditor Troll portrays himself as a family man. In that portrayal, he’s always standing up for himself as a hero of the people against the people who want to take down his business and expose the real identities of himself and his family. While, like Cordova, a lot of people are turned off by his personality, he has a huge fan base and people who will more than likely donate tons of money in his defense… and none of it matters.
The question before the court is whether or not Troll violated Cordova’s copyright when he used Cordova’s video.
The lawsuit is a claim against Troll and since it’s a defense of Cordova’s work, there’s a lot of harsh and inflammatory words towards the so-called anti-auditor community and has got everyone on that side of things rattled. That’s what it’s supposed to do.
If Frauditor Troll is successfully served, his reply will provide a defense against the no-good mean and dirty copyright holder and explain why what he did was perfectly legal. It’ll upset people in the auditing community. That’s what it’s supposed to do.
There’s a lot of fear in the supposed anti-auditing community right now because the lawsuit is seeking to define the limits of something called the Fair Use doctrine. According to Google’s AI overview, the Fair Use doctrine is not law, it’s a limitation to copyright that gives creators the right the ability to use limited portions of another person’s work.
The fear is present right now because the fair use doctrine is being challenged, and again, while the fear is overblown, at some level it is justified. The lawsuit might serve as a template for other creators to register their work and take similar action against those who produce reaction videos.
However, the fair use doctrine has always been applied on a case-by-case basis. The lawsuit is not going to change this, despite the bluster contained within the initial complaint.
The complaint is seeking action on one video, against one creator. While it may scare people and it may eventually force changes to YouTube policy, the time and expense involved in the current system will prevent mass overkill of lawsuits and the end of reaction videos.
That said, there are already limits on making reaction videos using footage from big Hollywood production studios who produce movies, video games, television shows and other media. However, there’s still a thriving reaction community on YouTube despite the limitations presented by the corporations who vigorously defend their works.
Reaction videos will still exist, but those who create them must be smarter about the use of the original content. There are limits, and finding those limits and a way to fill the magic eight minutes of content to hit mid-roll advertising will be a challenge to those who want to make a living making reaction videos.
We leave you with another case that isn’t getting as much attention.
Recently, Team Skeptic, a widely popular figure in the community that reacts to auditors, sovereign citizens, so-called “Karens” and the like has had to take action against other creators on YouTube.
His videos have been basically copied by AI channels and used as original works by those channels. Skeptic has been hailed as a hero in his community for taking action against the copying of his work and for actively working to protect his work even if it means having entire YouTube channels taken down.
The difference between Skeptic and Cordova? One has a more punchable face than the other? Nope. In the eyes of YouTube, there shouldn’t be.
Cordova may be seen as insufferable, his close relationship with his mother may be strange to some, his views of public display on pornography and weird choice in facial fur may leave some scratching their heads. He might not be the brightest or most handsome guy, his criminal record, his lifestyle choices and weird dance videos may be in question, but, again, none of it matters. He has the right to protect his work.
In the end, the court will have to decide whether or not Troll took too much of his work. The lawyers will have the final say and creators will go on creating, with new guidelines in place to make sure everyone plays nice.
The increased exposure for Cordova’s causes did nothing to help his on-going crowd sourcing campaign, which remains at $905.00 out of a $20,000.00 goal for the third straight month.
As a whole, the market reflected Cordova’s efforts for Monday as no winner was crowned, and no donations were made to any of the campaigns we cover.
We will continue to provide updates on DMA vs. Troll as we receive them.
