Open Letter Warning of Legal Action to Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski

Because Rumble did not inform me immediately, they have opened themselves up to legal liability in both the US and the UK. They are already banned in France, and, on further analysis, I understand that there are some very simple routes I can take to hold them to account.

Here is my letter to Chris Pavlovski, the current CEO of Rumble. It is uncompromising. Exactly as I intend to be in the face of censorship from here on out. I will be demanding significant damages, a public apology and reinstatement of my work. It’s time for Big Tech to respect public interest journalism.

Mr. Chris Pavlovski

Chief Executive Officer

Rumble Inc.

444 Gulf of Mexico Drive

Longboat Key, FL 34228

United States

October 26, 2025

Re: Egregious Violation of DMCA Notification Requirements and Breach of User Trust – Immediate Demand for Remediation and Accountability

Dear Mr. Pavlovski,

I am writing to you as a loyal content creator and user of Rumble’s platform, based in the United Kingdom, to express my profound outrage and demand swift, comprehensive redress for Rumble’s blatant and inexcusable failure to comply with fundamental legal obligations under the United States Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 512. On January 8, 2025, Rumble summarily removed three of my videos from my channel in response to a DMCA takedown request submitted by the NJF Holdings Legal Team—also based in the United Kingdom—without providing me, the affected subscriber, with any form of notification whatsoever. I only discovered this unlawful excision of my content on March 27, 2025, nearly three months later, when I noticed the videos had vanished from my channel without explanation or proper recourse.

This is not merely an administrative oversight; it is a deliberate dereliction of duty that has irreparably harmed my ability to engage with my audience, monetize my work, and defend my rights. When I publicly raised this issue on the X platform, you personally responded, assuring me that Rumble would send an email “documenting how to respond to a DMCA request.” This assurance was not only hollow but actively misleading: by the time of your response, my videos had already been deleted without my knowledge, rendering any purported “response” process a farce. Such conduct undermines the very principles of transparency and fairness that Rumble claims to champion as an alternative to censored platforms.

Nature of the Removed Content: Legitimate Journalistic Inquiry into Matters of Grave Public Concern

The three videos in question formed a critical installment in my ongoing investigative series as an independent journalist, meticulously documenting and critiquing the shadowy interconnections among elite figures in technology, intelligence, finance, and scandal-ridden networks. At their core, these videos exposed Nicole Junkermann’s extensive dealings with Jeffrey Epstein—including her multiple recorded flights on his notorious “Lolita Express”—as well as her associations with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, the IDF’s former Unit 8200 Commander Pinchas Buchris, Elon Musk, and Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel. Drawing on verifiable public records, the videos highlighted potential conflicts of interest in Carbyne911’s board composition (featuring Junkermann alongside Barak and Buchris), its pursuit of U.S. public contracts, Junkermann’s role in the UK’s NHS, her entanglement in the FIFA corruption scandal, and her exposure in the Panama Papers. These were not salacious gossip but transformative commentary on the risks of unchecked influence in national security and tech funding—precisely the kind of fearless reporting that platforms like Rumble purport to protect.

Central to the videos were screenshots from the publicly available Carbyne911.com team page, captured faithfully at the time of access and now preserved in the Wayback Machine archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20190606162815/https://carbyne911.com/team/). These images documented the organization’s high-profile board, serving as evidentiary anchors for my analysis. Screenshots of public websites for journalistic purposes are routinely shielded under fair use doctrine, particularly when addressing issues of profound public interest like Epstein’s web of enablers and the fusion of private capital with state power.

My incorporation of these materials unequivocally qualifies as fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107, transforming raw factual disclosures into incisive critique. The four statutory factors tilt overwhelmingly in my favor:

Purpose and Character of the Use: This was quintessentially transformative journalism, far beyond rote reproduction. As an independent creator, I cropped and graphically adapted the screenshot to dissect Carbyne911’s ties to Epstein, Thiel, Barak, Buchris, and Junkermann herself, weaving it into a narrative exposing conflicts in tech-national security pipelines, her involvement in the UK NHS, FIFA corruption claims, and Panama Papers scandal. This infusion of new insight, commentary, and public-interest analysis—hallmarks of news reporting and criticism—renders it a favored use. Courts routinely affirm such adaptations in journalistic works, even in commercial contexts (e.g., Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, upholding video essay critiques).

Nature of the Copyrighted Work: The original webpage was a factual, informational roster of Carbyne911’s board—hardly creative fiction warranting robust protection. Public business disclosures like these merit minimal copyright safeguards, prioritizing dissemination over restriction. The images were from publicly available webpages and were transformative in nature. I used only images which helped to analyze Nicole Junkermann’spublic business dealings.

Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used: I employed only the essential cropped segment spotlighting the board, integrated into a expansive analytical framework. This targeted, minimal extraction was indispensable for illustration and cannot be deemed “substantial” in context.

Effect on the Potential Market: Zero market harm ensued; the screenshot supplants no commercial value of the archived page but amplifies scrutiny, potentially spurring traffic to the source. As non-commercial journalism, it encroaches on no licensing ecosystem for such disclosures.

This takedown is rendered all the more outrageous—and potentially indicative of bad-faith selective enforcement—by Rumble’s intimate financial bonds to Peter Thiel, one of the very figures scrutinized in my videos. In 2021, Thiel spearheaded a multimillion-dollar investment in Rumble through his Founders Fund and Narya Capital (co-founded by the current Vice President of the US J.D. Vance), cementing your platform’s reliance on his patronage. For a self-styled bastion of “free speech” to excise content probing Thiel’s Epstein-adjacent orbit without notice smacks of craven favoritism, eroding creator trust and inviting accusations of platform capture by the very elites it vows to defy.

Under Section 512(g) of the DMCA, Rumble, as a U.S.-based service provider, is legally obligated to “promptly notify the subscriber” when it removes or disables access to material in response to a valid copyright infringement notice. This notification is not optional—it is a cornerstone of the safe harbor protections that shield platforms like Rumble from liability for user-generated content. Rumble’s own Copyright and Content Policy explicitly affirms compliance with the DMCA, including the counter-notification process, which presupposes that users are informed of takedowns to exercise their rights. By failing to notify me, Rumble has not only violated federal law but has also exposed itself to severe legal ramifications, including:

Loss of Safe Harbor Immunity: Pursuant to Section 512(g)(1), non-compliance with the notification requirement strips Rumble of its exemption from monetary damages and injunctive relief for copyright infringement related to the removed material. This leaves Rumble vulnerable to direct liability for the infringing acts alleged in the takedown notice, potentially amounting to statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).

Liability for Bad Faith or Knowing Misrepresentation: If Rumble’s failure to notify was willful or in bad faith—compounded by your misleading public response—this could trigger claims under Section 512(f) for damages, including attorney’s fees, incurred by users like myself due to improper handling of notices. Courts have consistently held platforms accountable for such procedural lapses, as seen in cases like Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. (where notification failures were scrutinized in safe harbor analyses).

Breach of Contract and Consumer Protection Violations: Rumble’s Terms of Service and DMCA policy constitute a binding agreement with users worldwide, including those in the United Kingdom. Your failure to adhere to these terms breaches that contract, entitling me to damages for lost revenue, reputational harm, and emotional distress. Furthermore, as a U.S. company serving international users, Rumble’s actions may implicate the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act’s prohibitions on deceptive practices, inviting regulatory scrutiny.

International Implications: While I and NJF Holdings are UK-based, Rumble’s operations are subject to U.S. jurisdiction under the DMCA. However, this cross-border violation also opens avenues for enforcement through the UK Intellectual Property Office, potential claims under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 for wrongful interference, and service of process via the Hague Convention. I am prepared to pursue parallel remedies in both jurisdictions to ensure accountability.

Your platform’s motto of “free speech” rings hollow when it silences creators without due process, especially in an era where trust in tech giants is already eroded. This incident has not only cost me tangible losses, but has also eroded my confidence in Rumble as a reliable partner for independent voices. I demand the following immediate actions, to be completed within 10 business days of receipt of this letter:

Full Restoration of Content: Reinstate the three removed videos to my channel in their original form, with backdated metrics (views, likes, etc.) to mitigate lost engagement.

Complete Documentation: Provide all records related to the January 8, 2025, takedown, including the original DMCA notice from Nicole Junkermann’s NJF Holdings, internal handling logs, and evidence of (or explanation for the absence of) any notification attempts.

Compensation for Damages: Pay me $1,000,000 in compensation for quantifiable losses, including foregone revenue, plus an additional sum for punitive measures to deter future non-compliance. I calculate $150,000 per work which has been removed, along with $550,000 in damages for wrongful interference, potential lost revenue, reputational harm, and the emotional distress this has caused.

Formal Apology and Policy Assurance: Issue a public and private apology acknowledging this breach, and confirm in writing that Rumble has implemented enhanced protocols to ensure DMCA notifications are sent promptly and reliably to all affected users, regardless of location.

Facilitated Counter-Notice: Expedite processing of a counter-notice on my behalf, including forwarding it to NJF Holdings and restoring content unless a lawsuit is filed within the statutory period.

Failure to fully comply with these demands will compel me to escalate this matter aggressively: filing a formal complaint with the U.S. Copyright Office and FTC; initiating civil litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida; lodging a cross-border claim with UK authorities; and amplifying this scandal publicly to warn other creators of Rumble’s unreliability. I urge you to treat this as an opportunity to restore integrity rather than a prelude to protracted conflict. I await your urgent response and remedial actions. Contact me directly at the above email or phone to discuss resolution.

Yours sincerely,

Johnny Vedmore

Content Creator, Rumble Channel: https://rumble.com/user/JohnnyVedmore