None of them were ever followed up with. So while you're correct in theory, in practice the consequences of it were nonexistent.

Likely because the firm knows that the subpoena that they're sending you is bullshit in the first place. They don't actually want the legal challenge.

Sounds similar to ignoring clearly fraudulent DMCAs. Technically you are not allowed to ignore one no matter how clearly fraudulent it is, but in practice no one would follow up on those.

> Sounds similar to ignoring clearly fraudulent DMCAs. Technically you are not allowed to ignore one no matter how clearly fraudulent it is

Not true.

Technically, you are allowed to ignore ANY DMCA takedown. However, if you don't ignore it, and if you otherwise would have been guilty of copyright infringement for hosting the user-provided content at issue, then following the DMCA takedown request will immunize you (that's why it is called a "safe harbor" provision), so, if you aren't 100% certain that it's not wrong, you have a strong motive to respect it.

If the DMCA takedown request was actually fraudulent, then either there was no potentially violating material or the requester wasn't the copyright holder or their agent, so you had no liability to them to immunize against. So you absolute can ignore it as much as you want.

Well thank god corporations can’t be jailed /s