The word "copyright" is slowly transforming into a more generic meaning where a big company silences a little company/individual that it doesn't like. This case doesn't seem to have anything to do with actual copyright. Did the company specify exactly what content they believed was copied?
If you have a kid under 20, ask them what "copyright" means. They'll probably describe it to you in terms of corporate bullying rather than anything that has to do with intellectual property or copying.
If you have a kid under 20, ask them what "copyright" means. They'll probably describe it to you in terms of corporate bullying rather than anything that has to do with intellectual property or copying.