> (3) Contents of counter notification.—To be effective under this subsection, a counter notification must be a written communication provided to the service provider’s designated agent that includes substantially the following:
> (A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.
> (B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
> (C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
> (D) The subscriber’s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber’s address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.
However, if your service provider wants to be under the DMCA safe harbor, they must keep your content down for at least 10 days and no more than 14 days after they receive the counter notice (unless they receive a further notice from the originator of the DMCA that they have filed a case regarding the alleged infringement --- in that case the content will remain down until the case is resolved).
In a lot of cases, having the content down for 10-14 days is kind of too long. Also, you may not want to provide your identity information to the originator of the complaint or your provider. You may also not be willing to state your good faith belief under penalty of perjury.
If the originator is willing to take their complaint to court, that's going to be an adventure --- but if they just send out mass DMCA complaints and don't follow up, you might be fine. If you actually want to take them to court over their complaints, even though they don't want to, that's an adventure too.
You may also try to convince your provider that the originators complaints aren't structurally valid DMCA complaints if they aren't, although that requires a sympathetic provider. I've only read summaries, but this case is a potential example of an invalid complaint, as the summary says it's a DMCA complaint about trademark infringement; the DMCA doesn't cover trademark, so the complaint is not structurally valid --- the provider has no duty to process it, and receives no safe harbor from doing so. They may or may not have a duty to take action on trademark complaints, but it doesn't arise from the DMCA.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 section (g)(3)