UPDATE: The dispute was resolved and Aquachigger's channel is no longer in jeopardy.
Outdoorsman Aquachigger posts his videos on YouTube. Another YouTuber, Yousef Ahmed, reuploaded some of Aquachigger's work, adding some voice-over commentary, flipping the orientation and distorting the audio. If the edits were intended to fool ContentID, YouTube's automated system for detecting reuploaded or infringing content, it didn't work. ContentID notified Aquachigger of the reuse. After Aquachigger filed a takedown demand on the Yousef Ahmed copies, though, YouTube sent a response accusing him of fraud and threatening to shut down his channel.
I received a notice of channel termination from YouTube effective May 7, 2021, UNLESS I give up my copyright ownership rights of two of my videos that were stolen by a Youtuber in Saudia Arabia. Even then, the email clearly stated that they "may" terminate my channel anyway even if I give up my copyright because my DCMA complaint was "fraudulent". WTF? This guy uploaded two of my popular videos some time ago, modified them somewhat, and reaped millions of views. Youtube notified me of this so I requested via YouTube that he remove his videos. Somehow, Youtube now thinks I do not own my own works and has "determined" that I have submitted "fraudulent" copyright complaints. His channel is mostly a collection of videos he has stolen, flipped the aspect, and then slowed down the audio to try to escape detection. He then narrates them, calls them a "reaction video" and makes money off of the work of others. He doesn't even give my channel credit for the original video, not that it would make any difference except to make me not dislike him so much. Copying and publishing 10 full minutes of my work is clearly a violation of the DMCA. But I suppose since his channel is much larger than mine and undoubtedly generates much more advertising revenue, YouTube has decided that Aquachigger must be sacrificed unjustly. I won't go down easy. FREEDOM! (lol)
Ahmed's own channel appears to consist entirely of already-popular clips reposted in similar fashion with trivial commentary, flipped video and pitch-shifted audio. If this sounds like the work of a bottom-feeder trying to avoid detection, it's also good for nearly 7m subscribers.
Notwithstanding ContentID or its misuses, consider that YouTube says that it doesn't privately mediate copyright disputes. Here is a good example, in black and white, of it seeming to do exactly that: accusing a creator of filing a fraudulent takedown despite its own automated systems having prompted him to file the takedown in the first place.
Perhaps the ContentID algo and the Copyright Mediation algo aren't talking?