Invisible Narratives v. Next Level Apps Technology - FZCO

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INVISIBLE NARRATIVES,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEXT LEVEL APPS TECHNOLOGY -
FZCO,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-01644-NW
ORDER REGARDING CIVIL
CONTEMPT AND SANCTIONS
Re: ECF Nos. 54, 82
Before the Court is Plaintiff Invisible Narratives LLC’s (“Invisible Narratives”) motion for
an order finding Defendant Next Level Apps Technology FZCO (“Next Level”) in civil contempt
of the Court’s June 17, 2025 preliminary injunction and for an award of sanctions. Mot., ECF No.
54. The Court GRANTS Invisible Narratives’ motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On February 14, 2025, Invisible Narratives sued Next Level, asserting federal copyright
claims over its Skibidi Toilet content and characters. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Soon after,
Invisible Narratives filed an ex parte application seeking a temporary restraining order against
Next Level, which the Court granted. ECF Nos. 9, 11.
On June 16, 2025, the parties agreed to a preliminary injunction against Next Level and
embodied that agreement in a stipulation filed with the Court. ECF No. 36. The Court granted the
parties’ stipulation and imposed a preliminary injunction against Next Level on June 17, 2025.
ECF No. 37. The preliminary injunction provides, in relevant part: Next Level is “preliminarily
enjoined” from “[d]irectly or indirectly taking any actions to remove or disable access to any
material hosted on the Boom Channel, including by submitting DMCA [Digital Millenium
Copyright Act] Takedown Notices or other takedown notices to YouTube claiming that any such
Case 5:25-cv-01644-NW Document 102 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 6

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
material hosted on the Boom Channel infringes on any copyrights for Skibidi Toilet content or
characters, or removing or disabling access to such material based on receipt of such DMCA
Takedown Notices—and, to the extent that any actions to remove or disable access have already
been taken, such actions shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, be immediately retracted and
canceled . . .” ECF No. 37 at 2, ¶ 1(a).
On October 7, 2025, YouTube sent a notice to Invisible Narratives informing that it was
taking down Skibidi Toilet video Episode 77 that day, pursuant to a DMCA takedown request.
Approximately two weeks later, on October 29, 2025, Invisible Narratives filed the current motion
requesting a finding of civil contempt against Next Level for a variety of alleged violations of the
stipulated June 17, 2025 preliminary injunction. ECF No. 54.
The matter was fully briefed, including supplemental briefing requested by the Court. ECF
Nos. 71, 80, 95, 96. Next Level additionally moved for leave to file a sur-reply, which Invisible
Narratives opposed. ECF Nos. 82, 83. The Court GRANTS Next Level’s motion for leave in the
interest of completeness, see In re: Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litig., 2014 WL 7206620, at *1
n.2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2014), and accepts the sur-reply as lodged on the docket, see ECF No. 82-
2.
The Court held a hearing on February 4, 2026. Between the time Invisible Narratives filed
its motion and the hearing, the parties learned that YouTube took down Episode 77 in response to
a DMCA takedown request submitted by Next Level approximately 10 months prior, in February
2025. This information caused Invisible Narratives to substantially narrow the scope of its
allegations of contempt against Next Level. See ECF Nos. 95, 96.
II. 	DISCUSSION
The parties agree on the following facts. See ECF Nos. 95, 96. On February 4, 2025,
Next Level filed a request with YouTube (“February 4 Request”), to take down Skibidi Toilet
Episode 77. Next Level did not file any further takedown requests.
On October 7, 2025, Invisible Narratives received a notice from YouTube that Skibidi
Toilet Episode 77 was being taken down, effective that day, in response to a takedown notice.
Counsel for Invisible Narratives immediately submitted a DMCA counternotice to YouTube and
Case 5:25-cv-01644-NW Document 102 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 6

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
contacted Next Level’s counsel.
The parties engaged in limited discovery on this issue, including Next Level serving a
third-party subpoena on Google (YouTube’s parent company) for records of Next Level’s
takedown requests and correspondence with YouTube. See Opp’n, ECF No. 71, ¶ 20. After
reviewing the documents from Google, the parties believe that YouTube’s October 7, 2025 actions
were a substantially delayed response to Next Level’s February 4 Request. Next Level’s counsel
then advised YouTube that the episode should not have been taken down and requested its
restoration. After being down for 57 days, YouTube restored Skibidi Toilet Episode 77 on
December 3, 2025.
The parties agree that the remaining question is whether Next Level violated the terms of
the June 17, 2025 preliminary injunction by failing to retract the February 4 Request. Invisible
Narratives argues that the Court’s Order required Next Level to do so, and if it had, YouTube
would not have acted on the request months later in October 2025. Next Level asserts that it had
no reason to believe the February 4 Request was still active and therefore had no obligation to act.
A district court has the inherent authority to enforce compliance with its orders through a
civil contempt proceeding. See Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S.
821, 827-28 (1994). Civil contempt “consists of a party’s disobedience to a specific and definite
court order by failure to take all reasonable steps within the party’s power to comply.” In re Dual-
Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993). To demonstrate
civil contempt, the movant must show through clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the
disobedient party violated the terms of a court order; (2) the conduct went beyond “the sort of
technical violation that would be consistent with ‘substantial compliance’”; and (3) the “violation
was ‘not based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the order.’” United States v. DAS
Corp., 18 F.4th 1032, 1039 (9th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted).
Here, the June 17, 2025 preliminary injunction was specific, clear, and relevant to the
controversy currently before the Court. The preliminary injunction states: “to the extent that any
actions to remove or disable” Skibidi Toilet content had “already been taken [by Next Level], such
actions shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, be immediately retracted and canceled.” ECF
Case 5:25-cv-01644-NW Document 102 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 6

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
No. 37 at 2, ¶ 1(a) (emphasis added). There is no dispute that Next Level did not retract and
cancel the February 4 Request until weeks after YouTube sent its October 7, 2025 notice to
Invisible Narratives informing that it was taking down Skibidi Toilet Episode 77. Accordingly,
Next Level violated the terms of the Court’s June 17, 2025 preliminary injunction.
Next Level’s failure to retract the February 4 Request does not qualify as a “technical
violation” that was consistent with “substantial compliance” with the Court’s Order. At the heart
of Invisible Narratives’ complaint and early ex parte temporary restraining order is its interest in
asserting its ownership over Skibidi Toilet content and characters and ensuring that the Skibidi
Toilet content is consistently available to consumers on YouTube. Next Level’s failure to
immediately retract and cancel its February 4 Request after the Court entered its June 17, 2025
Order was a direct, significant, and serious violation of the Court’s preliminary injunction.
Next Level argues that it should not be sanctioned because it “reasonably presumed [its
February 4 Request] was a dead letter[.]” ECF No. 95 at 4. While that may be true, particularly
given that YouTube did not act on Next Level’s takedown request for months, Next Level’s
unambiguous obligations under the preliminary injunction were to “immediately” retract and
cancel any takedown requests that it had already submitted to YouTube. Had Next Level done so
it would have complied with the preliminary injunction to which it agreed, and this issue would
not be before the Court. Instead, although Next Level had the power to retract and cancel its
takedown notice, it unilaterally elected not to do what the June 17, 2025 Order required, and
presumed that its February 4 Request was resolved. The Court finds that Next Level’s action, or
in this case inaction, was not based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the Court’s
June 17, 2025 Order.
Invisible Narratives has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Next Level engaged
in “disobedience to a specific and definite court order,” namely the June 17, 2025 preliminary
injunction, by its “failure to take all reasonable steps within [its] power to comply.” See In re
Dual-Deck, 10 F.3d at 695. The Court grants Invisible Narratives’ motion, and holds Next Level
in civil contempt.
As a sanction for Next Level’s contempt, Invisible Narratives asks the Court for default
Case 5:25-cv-01644-NW Document 102 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 6

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
judgment on Invisible Narratives’ claims and dismissal of Next Level’s counterclaims. In the
alternative, Invisible Narratives seeks compensatory sanctions “for at least the first 10 business
days that the Removed Video was unavailable.” ECF No. 54 at 23. The Court finds default
judgment and dismissal of Next Level’s counterclaims to be a disproportionate sanction for Next
Level’s failure to retract its February 4 Request. While compensatory damages for Invisible
Narratives’ loss of revenue for 10 of the 57 days Episode 77 was removed from YouTube would
be a modest and reasonable sanction, Invisible Narratives failed to provide the Court with any
evidence, data, or argument regarding how to calculate or validate those losses. As a result, the
Court denies Invisible Narratives’ requests for compensatory damages for the time Episode 77 was
unavailable on YouTube, and for dismissal of counterclaims and entry of default judgment against
Next Level.
Invisible Narratives additionally requests attorney’s fees and costs for bringing this motion
and for submitting the DMCA counternotice. The Court finds that an award of reasonable
attorney’s fees and associated costs is a proportionate and appropriate sanction to compensate
Invisible Narratives for the losses it incurred in addressing Next Level’s violation of the Court’s
June 17, 2025 Order, including attending to the takedown of Episode 77, filing the counternotice,
and filing and arguing this motion. See Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510, 517 (9th
Cir. 1992) (attorney’s fees and costs are an appropriate remedy for a civil contempt award).
III. 	CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Invisible Narratives’ motion to hold Next Level in civil contempt for
violating the Court’s June 17, 2025 preliminary injunction, and ORDERS Next Level to pay
Invisible Narratives reasonable attorney’s fees and associated costs, consistent with this Order.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 5:25-cv-01644-NW Document 102 Filed 02/06/26 Page 5 of 6

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
The parties are DIRECTED to meet and confer to seek agreement regarding Invisible
Narratives’ reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Any agreement shall be filed as a stipulation by
February 11, 2026. If the parties do not file a stipulation, then by no later than February 17, 2026,
Invisible Narratives may file a bill of costs for reasonable attorney’s fees and associated costs.
Next Level’s response to the bill of costs is due by February 20, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 6, 2026
Noël Wise
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-01644-NW Document 102 Filed 02/06/26 Page 6 of 6