Authors Alliance Submits Comment to FTC, Highlighting Copyright Misuse on Technology Platforms

Last week, Authors Alliance and Creative Commons responded to the FTC’s Request for Public Comment Regarding Technology Platform Censorship (Docket No. FTC-2025-0023-0001). Our comment urges the agency to examine how copyright enforcement mechanisms on major technology platforms are harming independent creators and undermining the constitutional principles behind copyright laws. 

While this public inquiry is likely politically motivated to promote certain partisan narratives, we saw an opportunity to redirect the conversation toward a more productive and under-examined area: abusive copyright-based takedowns and demonetization practices. 

There’s a lack of meaningful choice for creators and users in today’s digital ecosystem. People are largely left to choose between Meta and Google as the one controlling their online speech. When two companies control access to audiences and revenue, abusive practices like wrongful takedowns and demonetization will persist unchecked. (For more information on the harm of technology platform oligopoly, see Electronic Frontier Foundation’s comment and National Hispanic Media Coalition’s comment, replying to the same FTC RFI). Many of the problems raised and discussed in the thousands of comments addressed to the FTC—including our own—merely describe symptoms to this deeper structural problem, all too predictable and natural for an oligopoly. 

Assuming nothing meaningful will be done in the near term to address the antitrust problems underlying technology platforms, it’s at least essential for our government to confront the abusive copyright enforcement practices head-on, so that copyright can fulfill its constitutional purpose, online culture can thrive, and creators of all kinds can engage in a more open and equitable digital environment. 

Our comment lays out how current technology platform copyright enforcement systems, shaped by private agreements between large entertainment companies and tech platforms, disproportionately harm independent creators, educators, researchers and the general public. These systems are designed to favor the interests of corporate rightsholders, offering little transparency, no meaningful appeal processes, and no deterrent for repeated false claims. The takedown mechanisms are frequently abused to suppress lawful expression, including those reliant on fair use and those using public domain materials or factual content that falls outside the scope of copyright altogether. The power imbalance has only deepened since the Lenz decision, which effectively immunized rightsholders who assert claims under the guise of “good faith” without any evidence supporting their claims.

Even though the FTC’s authority is limited, we believe it can influence the trade practices of technology platforms, including through investigations and the issuance of guidance. We recommended:

• That all takedown and demonetization be subject to transparent and accessible appeal mechanisms. 
• That repeat offenders who submit multiple wrongful copyright takedown or demonetization requests be (at least temporarily) suspended from enforcement privileges. 
• That certain public-interest institutions be put on a white list where wrongful takedowns cannot disrupt their educational or informational activities.

Our comment can be viewed through the FTC’s public docket.