The only thing you have to attest under penalty of perjury in a DMCA claim is that you (the person filing the notice) are authorized to act on behalf of the cop

The only thing you have to attest under penalty of perjury in a DMCA claim is that you (the person filing the notice) are authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner you are claiming has had their copyright violated. The attestation that the use is unauthorized is merely a "good faith belief", which is a standard of evidence so low as to be meaningless. I don't believe there has ever been a successful case going after someone for filing frivolous DMCA notices. (As others have said, YouTube has their own inhouse process that does not actually use the DMCA in most cases, but I wanted to elucidate this point, because lots of people seem to think the DMCA takedowns have some repercussions for fraud. In my opinion, they don't.)