Repeat-infringer termination policy
repeat-infringer-termination-policyDomain: ip-dmcaType: policyDescription
A working repeat-infringer termination policy actually terminates accounts that cross a defined infringement threshold, and documents the chain of strikes and decisions in a form a court can audit. The components are a published policy that defines what constitutes a strike (typically a takedown notice the platform has accepted as valid), a threshold at which termination occurs (the three-strike rolling-window pattern is conventional, not statutory), an internal review and appeal mechanism for disputed strikes, and a per-account audit trail that documents both the strikes and the termination decisions tied to them. The operative word in DMCA Section 512(i)(1)(A) is reasonably implemented. A policy that sits in the terms of service but is not enforced does not satisfy the safe harbor. The Fourth Circuit held this against Cox Communications in BMG v. Cox (2018); the Second Circuit's Capitol Records v. Vimeo line of cases set parallel guardrails. The defensibility question is not whether the policy text exists; it is whether the policy was actually applied to accounts that crossed the threshold, which is why the per-account audit log matters more than the policy text. Recordkeeping that shows reviewer identity, reasoning, and the strike count at the moment of decision holds up better than a count-only export. The piece that consistently goes wrong is the threshold-crossing logic. Counterclaim-tolled strikes that never come back onto the counter; expired strikes that the system was supposed to age off but did not; repeat counts that reset across product lines or across accounts a single user maintains under different emails; reviewer queues that quietly drop strikes when the takedown originator went silent. Each of these is a discoverable gap, and each erodes the safe-harbor defense in a way the platform usually only discovers in litigation. The pattern that holds up under scrutiny errs on the side of termination at the threshold rather than retaining accounts case-by-case, and treats the appeal mechanism as the safety valve rather than the threshold logic itself.
Applicability
Applies when: business model role is intermediary or mixed.
Required by (1 regulation)
- DMCA
17 U.S.C. § 512(i)(1)(A): adoption + reasonable implementation of a repeat-infringer termination policy is a qualifying condition for §512 safe harbor (BMG v. Cox 4th Cir. 2018; Capitol Records v. Vimeo 2d Cir. 2016).
Fulfilled by (3)
- markmonitor · partial · low effort · $$$MarkMonitor's brand-protection workflows track repeat-infringer counts alongside takedown.
- copyright-agent · partial · low effort · $$Copyright Agent maintains user-strike counters as part of takedown workflow.
- In-house build · medium effortIn-house implementation needs a strike counter joined to user-account state + reviewer queue + termination workflow + appeals process.
Magist does not accept payment from vendors. Methodology.
Evidence formats
- published repeat-infringer policy in ToS / help center
- strike-counter audit trail per user account
- termination decision log with reviewer + reasoning
- appeal handling SOP + decision log
- annual board / legal review of policy effectiveness