Phoenix gym operator Premier Fitness Systems sues an individual under DMCA 512(f), alleging three copyright reports to Meta got its Instagram account suspended

What was filed

The complaint is Document 1 in No. 2:26-cv-07625-MTL, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, filed and dated October 19, 2026 (15 pages). The plaintiff is Premier Fitness Systems, LLC (PFS), an Arizona limited liability company that the complaint says owns and operates a gym in Phoenix, Arizona, and has its principal place of business in Arizona. The defendant is Karen Parker Davidson, who the complaint alleges, upon information and belief, is a resident of Annapolis, Maryland, and a registered nurse who also has a social media presence. Counsel for PFS are Levi T. Claridge and Hoyt S. Hoyt of The Cavanagh Law Firm, P.A., Phoenix, Arizona. Jurisdiction is pleaded on diversity under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1), with an amount in controversy over $75,000, and on federal question under 28 U.S.C. 1331, because the action arises under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 512. Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1391. (Compl. paras. 1 to 7, 11; pp. 1, 15.)

The account, the reports, and the suspension

According to the complaint, PFS owned and operated the Instagram account @projectairway, which had nearly 30,000 followers as of December 30, 2025 and more than 900 posts, and which offered educational information on airways and breathing, childhood facial growth and development, and related health topics, along with resources to help parents and adults find orthodontists and pediatric dentists. It says the account earned revenue for PFS through sponsored posts, affiliate sales, ad revenue, and product sales. (Compl. paras. 8 to 10.)

The complaint alleges that on or about December 30, 2025, within a very short time, Davidson made three copyright reports to Meta about specific posts on the account, using Meta's intellectual property reporting form. The three posts were dated November 25, December 20, and December 29, 2025, and concerned topics including pediatric care collaboration, facial growth and oral posture, and nasal valve function and airway resistance. The complaint alleges, upon information and belief, that Davidson knew three back-to-back reports would result in an automatic suspension of the account and made them that way intending that result, and it quotes Meta's published repeat infringer policy. It says Meta suspended the entire account on December 30, 2025, so that PFS can no longer access it or post to it and the public cannot view it, and that the suspension hampered the release of a course on airway health and breathing that PFS had marketed and kept PFS from marketing a New Year's personal training special. (Compl. paras. 12 to 22.)

Beginning on January 3, 2026, the complaint says, PFS submitted several counter notifications to Meta under 17 U.S.C. 512(g), asserting a good faith belief that the posts were reported as a result of mistake, misidentification, or malintent. It alleges, upon information and belief, that Davidson never notified Meta of a lawsuit seeking to restrain PFS, and says she has not served PFS with a summons in any lawsuit. It alleges that PFS has not been able to identify any material copyrighted by Davidson in the reported posts, which it says contain information PFS created independently or information too general for copyright protection, and that Meta has not restored the account. (Compl. paras. 23 to 26, 40.)

The demand letter and the response

According to the complaint, PFS's counsel sent Davidson a demand letter on August 20, 2026, asking her either to identify the allegedly copyrighted material or, if none existed, to contact Meta and withdraw the reports. It alleges that her August 24, 2026 response did not identify any copyright infringement and instead indicated that her reports were motivated by professional concerns about the account's airway-related health content and about whether PFS and one of its owners were properly credentialed to provide that educational information. The complaint says PFS disputes those concerns, alleges that despite repeated requests Davidson never identified any copyrighted material of hers, and characterizes her response as an admission that her reports were not motivated by copyright infringement. It alleges, upon information and belief, that she has not withdrawn the reports. (Compl. paras. 27 to 29, 33 to 34, 36 to 39.)

Counts and relief

Count One alleges misrepresentation under 17 U.S.C. 512(f). It alleges that Meta relied on the reports in suspending the account; that, upon information and belief, Davidson falsely represented that she owned the allegedly infringed copyrights and has not identified which of her copyrights were allegedly infringed; and that she admitted her reports were based largely on credential concerns rather than copyright infringement. It seeks damages in an amount to be proven at trial, plus costs and attorneys' fees. Count Two alleges tortious interference with business relations or expectancy, asserting that the reports interfered with PFS's existing and prospective relationships with customers, including buyers of its planned course, and that the interference was wrongful because Davidson knew her representations to Meta were false and made them to harm PFS. Count Three alleges trade libel or injurious falsehood based on the same statements to Meta, alleging that Davidson knew they were false or recklessly disregarded their falsity and that PFS lost customers as a result. Counts Two and Three each seek exemplary and punitive damages. (Compl. paras. 41 to 70.)

The prayer for relief asks for an injunction ordering Davidson to withdraw and retrieve all reports to Meta regarding alleged copyright infringement, to disseminate corrective communications to dispel what the complaint calls false and deceptive messages, and to refrain from any conduct meant to discourage customers from conducting business with PFS. It also seeks compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial; lost profits, lost enterprise value, and out-of-pocket expenses to restore its image; exemplary and punitive damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; costs and attorneys' fees; and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. (Compl. paras. 4, 53 to 54; pp. 14 to 15.)

The statute

Section 512(f) of the Copyright Act provides that any person who "knowingly materially misrepresents" under section 512 "that material or activity is infringing" is liable for damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by an alleged infringer who is injured "as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing." The claim here is against the sender of the takedown reports, not against a party who sent a counter notification.

The case is assigned to Judge Michael T. Liburdi. The public docket, as last updated on October 21, 2026, shows the complaint with its civil cover sheet, the opening of the case, and a summons submitted on October 19 and issued on October 20, 2026. Watch for service of the summons and for Davidson's response to the complaint.