The claim is couched as, and appears to have been read by Github as, a §512 claim, bearing several of the conspicious elements of a §512 notice. As my footnotes document, it was widely read as same (it took me some time to realise it was not a §512 claim myself).
This could be argued as intentional, deceptive, and hence fraudulent.
>This could be argued as intentional, deceptive, and hence fraudulent.
Fraud requires a false statement, generally. The letter clearly cites 1201 and never cites 512, and is missing essential elements of 512, (e.g. it never claims direct infringement). There's no way 512(f) applies.
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fraud
See also 18 USC 1001.
There's no false representation of a matter of fact, here.
And 1001 applies to lying to the government, which isn't relevant here.
My intent is to show legal definitions of fraud differing markedly from your assertion.
I said generally. It remains the case that the letter here is not plausibly fraud.