I've heard about false copyright problems on youtube, but it is the first time I've heard SME as an accuser. I don't particularly follow copyright issues. Youtube tends to purge infowars and Alex Jones for reasons other than copyrights, since big tech outright banned him at the same time.

I haven't made youtube videos in about a decade, and didn't deal with monetization. Last I heard users have 30 days to challenge these false accusations, although asserting defenses or ownership could prove difficult for the average person. Listening to a lawful masses video (Leonard French) on the topic, the copyright office does allow people to upload up to 500MB of data to register their own copyrighted video.

If SME is repeatedly and frivolously claiming content that is't theirs, and there isn't a plain and adequate remedy at law, and a petitioner is facing an irreparable injury (including loss of rights) or nuisance in the absence of the issuance of an injunction, it may be possible to enjoin youtube or sme in a court of chancery. Chancery dates back to the romans most for contractual matters for which there was no remedy at law, and this practice has continued to this date to protect jury trial rights-aside from the family courts that act without jurisdiction. In chancery there is generally no mechanism to recover monetary damages. Where the harm is in time and money, the matter sounds of tort (fraud most likely) and thus a plain, adequate, and complete remedy exists at law-so then chancery would not have jurisdiction and so no injunction against them. The problem with tort, unless you are say pewdiepie, is that it may cost more in attorney fees than the amount to be recovered individually, and there is always the chance a jury could side with them and you may have to pay their fees too. The only real way to be punitive [civilly] is to collect enough people who have been harmed and sick them with a class action suit.

Alternatively, there may be remedies in the criminal law (which would also invalidate chancery jurisdiction) and that would require determining what state, and ultimately what county, has jurisdiction, and the fraud statutes in that jurisdiction, and if an individual can swear out a warrant if local law enforcement refuses. It also requires identifying the person or persons behind the fraudulent conduct-which might prove be impossible unless youtube records such info (A failure of youtube to document proof, could reopen chancery jurisdiction over youtube). It could just be some guy from India being paid pennies to do some corporate bidding making a domestic prosecution less likely. Because the harm is likely interstate, the federal government may have jurisdiction also. Meaning they could be prosecuted both federally and locally. But it is up to the discretion of the USDOJ to prosecute at the federal level. But Given the last 25 years at the USDOJ, they are the very enemies of free speech corrupted with Biden [vawa] Bucks.

Perhaps there are administrative remedies available also (which must be exhausted prior to injuncti relief) also since the congress can regulate interstate commerce in which it becomes a question of how much do you want to dig through various federal agencies and their rules to try to find a needle in a haystack that may not exist at all. If an attorney charges $300+/hour, might be best to hit google yourself to try to find the needle, and research the d.c circuit for administrative rulings on any discovered legal theories to test their fitness. Then, after finding a potential match, discuss the theory with counsel.