YouTube Removes Infringing Video After Lawsuit Filed
By Paige Elizabeth | Occupy Freedom
Last week, the video published by Regilio Hooplot on his YouTube channel was taken offline after months of attempted resolution through official channels. The video contained unauthorized use of intellectual property, personal likeness, and defamatory material directed at our founder, Paige Elizabeth, and by extension, at the values Occupy Freedom PAC was established to defend — digital integrity, accountability, and the right to be represented truthfully online.
This removal was not a favor. It was the direct result of our federal lawsuit against YouTube, Google LLC, and Mr. Hooplot, filed and submitted as part of YouTube’s internal complaint process. The filed complaint itself — a matter of public record — was attached to our takedown correspondence with YouTube’s Legal Support Team. That filing provided clear notice that the material in question was the subject of active litigation, and therefore required immediate review under YouTube’s own legal policy guidelines.
While the defendants have not yet been formally served, the filing establishes the procedural posture of the case and ensures that the video remains offline pending the outcome of litigation.
Background: When “Fair Use” Becomes Weaponized
For years, creators have relied on fair use doctrine to remix, review, and critique content — an essential part of free expression. But fair use is not a blank check for exploitation. Increasingly, bad-faith actors use the label of “commentary” or “parody” as a shield for targeted humiliation, harassment, or monetized mockery.
In this case, the video in question crossed multiple lines:
It republished copyrighted material without authorization.
It misrepresented factual information for entertainment value.
It leveraged a major platform’s algorithm to amplify personal harm.
When Occupy Freedom PAC reviewed the evidence, it was clear that the situation reflected a broader systemic issue: platform negligence and selective enforcement. YouTube’s existing tools make it nearly impossible for individuals to defend their digital likeness unless they have legal representation, resources, or — in this case — the will to push the matter into federal court.
The Role of YouTube and Google
By the time our legal complaint was filed, YouTube had already received prior notice of the violation. Still, no corrective action was taken until the lawsuit itself was filed and provided to the company.
This underscores a troubling trend: major platforms are increasingly reactive, not proactive. Their decision-making is often guided by public relations risk, not ethical or legal responsibility. The fact that the video was removed only after the lawsuit was filed demonstrates that litigation, not good faith, remains the only reliable enforcement mechanism for victims of digital exploitation.
The Broader Mission: Digital Accountability
Occupy Freedom PAC was formed to challenge corporate impunity in both financial and digital ecosystems. Whether the harm comes through predatory banking practices or unchecked online defamation, the common thread is the same — power without accountability.
The internet has matured faster than the ethics governing it. Platforms like YouTube and Google have evolved from hosts to gatekeepers of public perception, deciding which stories are amplified and which are buried. That power must come with the same level of duty and transparency required of any other public-facing entity.
Our work is about restoring equilibrium — ensuring that digital citizens have recourse when institutions fail to self-regulate.
Next Steps
Our legal team will proceed with service on all named defendants in the coming weeks. Once formal service is completed, pre-trial motions and discovery will begin.
Until then, the infringing video will remain offline, consistent with YouTube’s own obligations once notified of active litigation. Any attempt to republish, repost, or redistribute the content during this period would constitute a knowing violation of law and will be addressed accordingly.
We are also in the process of compiling a white paper on digital abuse and platform complicity, using this case as one of several examples of how platforms allow monetized exploitation to persist. The report will be distributed to policymakers, journalists, and consumer protection agencies as part of our ongoing initiative for Digital Rights and Accountability.
Why This Case Matters
This case is not just about one video or one creator. It’s about redefining what justice looks like in the digital age — where reputations are destroyed with a click, and accountability often arrives only when the harmed party fights back.
By pursuing this case, we are asserting a simple but powerful principle:
Free speech ends where defamation and exploitation begin.
This is the same principle that underpins consumer rights, fair competition, and the rule of law. It’s the bridge between technological freedom and human dignity — a balance we intend to defend, case by case if necessary.
A Final Word
The video may be down, but the precedent it represents remains active. We encourage creators, consumers, and advocates to follow this case closely. Each step forward helps build the legal framework necessary to protect all digital citizens from coercion, defamation, and misuse of personal likeness.
Occupy Freedom PAC will continue to push for reform — in courts, in policy, and in public dialogue — until online platforms are held to the same ethical standard as every other institution that profits from the public.
Occupy Freedom PAC
Fighting for digital sovereignty, consumer protection, and the right to exist online without exploitation.
