For all practical purposes the 512f has proven to be a pretty pointless tool for holding large corporation accountable.
Agreed that not enough people are actually suing companies for false 512f takedowns. Sounds like this could be an interesting business opportunity for an enterprising attorney.
That's because it's very difficult to prove that they did it knowingly, especially in an age of automated DMCA takedowns. It has nothing to do with the pain of a suit or any of that, but that you're likely to lose.
If you run an automated system that deals in any way, shape, or form with legally binding documentation and - entites, you should be liable for the consequences, period.
If you're a financial institution, which runs an automated trading system you can't really argue that this trade, which just cost you a couple gazillions, is from an automated system and should thus be considered invalid.
Any exchange and the regulating authorities will laugh you out of business.
Why should different principals apply if you automate your legal bullying?
Edit: To make an analogy, it's like me firing a gun in no particular direction. If I hit someone, it's at least manslaughter. But if it were like the DMCA takedown system, there would be two options: I didn't knowingly shoot at anyone in particular, so I get off with nothing, or I knowingly shot at them and was in the wrong, making it murder.
Conversely if you set up a gun in the roof of your house and have it randomly shoot into the street, lets see how long you get away with that for.