512 (f) Absolute provides a method for a person to claim damages for a misrepresentation of copyright in a DMCA Take Down
The fact this provision is not regularly enforced is because it would be expensive to do so, often exceeding the damages in the first place. However I wish EFF and other organizations would start pushing back against companies like this using 512 (f) and get some case law and actual damages including legal fees against these copyright abusers
512(f) is difficult to prove. It's not just "they got it wrong", it's "they got it wrong and they knew they were wrong". Copyright owners are not liable for actual mistakes.
This actually can be flipped on YouTubers' heads, too. If you counter-notify something that you know is infringing, you can be sued for 512(f) misrepresentation. So, say if you use a song in your video you don't own, you get DMCA'd, and you counternotify to get your video back up; you can now be countersued.
But even if you do have a genuine 512(f) case, you have another problem: it is not worth your while in order to sue. For regular copyright cases, you have a thing called statutory damages, which can go up to $150,000 per infringement if the infringer was "willful" (i.e. they basically said 'fuck you'). This is in contrast to "actual damages", which is where you prove to a judge that you lost $X or that the infringer gained $Y. It's extremely difficult to prove[0] actual damages, which is why we have statutory damages. Because without the guarantee of a large damage award, even an open-and-shut case against a wealthy target becomes uneconomic to prosecute.
In 512(f) claims, you only get actual damages plus fee shifting[1]. At least you can hope to recoup costs... except that that's not how fee shifting works. You don't just send the defendant your attorney's bill. The judge goes through that bill, picks out the "lodestar amount" to shift to the defendant, and you pay the rest.
Oh, and all of that is assuming that both you and your defendant are financially solvent, properly capitalized entities that can pay things. You can't sue a homeless man[2].
[0] You know the whole "lost sale argument", and how we love to poke holes in it? Yeah...
[1] Which, BTW, is also so un-American a concept that lawyers literally call it the French Rule. Or the British Rule. Either way, in most other countries the loser pays the winner's attorney's fees. In the US you only get fee shifting in copyright cases.
[2] Which, if you believe James Gosling, is the reason why he didn't completely kill GNU Emacs.
Also, you totally can sue a homeless man. It's just that you can't afford to.
The fact this provision is not regularly enforced is because it would be expensive to do so, often exceeding the damages in the first place. However I wish EFF and other organizations would start pushing back against companies like this using 512 (f) and get some case law and actual damages including legal fees against these copyright abusers