No, they're not lying, they have a bunch of systems in place to prevent the kind of abuse that they're allowed to prevent. The fact that the law encodes legal

No, they're not lying, they have a bunch of systems in place to prevent the kind of abuse that they're allowed to prevent. The fact that the law encodes legal abuse that cannot be blocked, doesn't mean google is lying because it doesn't block things it's not allowed to block. The position you're taking is "if a law allows any kind abuse you're not able to stop, you can't claim you're trying to prevent abuse". The law is stupid and terrible, the lack of penalties for incorrect and fraudulent claims, the mandatory multi-week takedown even when there are multiple methods to demonstrate a claim is invalid, the lack of compensation for recipients legal costs (meaning that the majority of targets can't afford a lawyer to respond and just has to accept it), the restrictive and coercive terms that essentially force hosting providers to blanket accept every takedown demand and limit what anti-abuse steps they can take. That said, u/kevingadd said that they're accepting incomplete submissions as valid, which would seems like a thing they should be trivially blocking - my guess based on prior experience in corporate America, they kept getting incomplete/erroneously filled out demands that were otherwise legitimate, and the companies sending them threatened them for not accepting the demands anyway - but I feel at this point they should adopt malicious compliance and require perfect fill and perfect info, and just respond to threats with "we get millions of bogus requests, and those requests may also target content that you have intentionally published, and we're trying to minimize the impact to you".