The Cult of Danielle Robertson

Have you ever tried to defend yourself against someone you couldn’t even see? Imagine living your best life as a digital content creator, only to be bullied by people who hate your content so much that they create anonymous profiles to damage your reputation and cut off your income.

Now, don’t get me wrong, critics are everywhere. Ignoring or blocking destructive criticism is usually the best approach. But what I’m talking about goes far beyond harmless internet “trolling.”

This is about cyber harassment, doxxing (the public release of private information with the intent to harm), bad-faith reports to social media platforms and even the Copyright Claims Board (CCB), and the filing of retaliatory federal lawsuits.

For years, one anonymous profile engaged in this exact behavior with seemingly no consequences, until now.

The purpose of this blog post is to expose the great lengths that the brazen and anonymous “Danielle Robertson,” a self-proclaimed Avenger, has taken to silence those who dared to defend themselves against her and her online cult’s vicious attacks.

The Rise of “Truth Teller Dani”

Danielle “Dani” Robertson first appeared online under usernames like Truth Teller Dani. The eerie account, featuring dark imagery and cryptic messages, joined the YouTube community on June 27, 2021, and almost immediately began targeting content creators without reasonable cause.

At first glance, she presented herself as a truth-teller, a whistleblower on a mission to expose wrongdoers. But behind the branding was something far more calculated and dangerous. Operating primarily through YouTube and social platforms like Instagram, Twitter, and her “Messy Dani” website, Danielle initially presented herself as a male avatar. She later transitioned to a woman and quickly built an army of loyal supporters.

This group eventually called themselves “The Avengers.” They weren’t superheroes, they were a gang of online followers who rallied behind Dani’s every accusation, mocked her targets, and harassed anyone brave enough to speak out against her. They weren’t just subscribers or fans; they behaved more like a cyber cult.

From the beginning, there were signs that “Truth Teller Dani” lacked integrity. Her content often centered on attacking Black women content creators. It wasn’t journalism, it was pointed defamation disguised as “fair use” commentary. And anyone who disagreed with her quickly became her next victim.

What made Danielle especially dangerous was her ability to draw people in. She didn’t need to say, “Attack this person.” She simply implied wrongdoing or disloyalty, and her subscribers handled the rest. Through vague accusations, sarcastic commentary, and highly edited videos, she created an environment of control and intimidation.

The internet gave her a platform, but the cult-like energy that enabled her to keep going gave her power. As she gained traction, so did her ability to weaponize copyright systems, privacy tools, and legal processes. The “Truth Teller Dani” persona evolved into more than just a YouTube channel, it became a meeting place for orchestrated digital attacks, using both her words and her fans as weapons.

For those unfamiliar with her or watching from the outside, she might appear passionate about social justice issues, or just messy. But for the people on the receiving end of her smear campaigns, the damage is very real. Misinformation. Harassment. Public humiliation. Copyright claims. Doxxing. Legal filings.

It all started here, with the rise of “Truth Teller Dani.”

Abuse of YouTube's Copyright Process

Initially, the Robertson robot presented itself as male and targeted a gossip blogger who went by the moniker Nosey Heaux. Nosey had built a YouTube channel with thousands of followers. Dani didn’t use social media to educate people about Nosey’s controversial antics, instead, she weaponized it as a form of revenge. This included harassment and the malicious release of personal identifying information.

Through relentless uploads of videos, photos, and even private adult content, Dani smeared Nosey’s reputation across the digital world. When Nosey ignored the troll account falsely claiming to be a “truth teller,” Dani allegedly abused YouTube’s reporting features and exploited a loophole in their copyright claims process, ultimately leading to the termination of Nosey’s channel.

Some believed Dani’s behavior was justified because of Nosey’s own controversies. But in the grand scheme, that support only fueled the start of Dani’s cold-blooded fear tactics and brutal terrorization of YouTube bloggers. She went off like a loose cannon, producing videos that fed into the unhinged internet culture we see today.

The individuals Dani fixates on are found primarily on YouTube. Some are casual creators posting for fun, while others are part of the YouTube Partner Program (YPP) and depend on royalties, sponsorships, and collaborations for income.

Some of Dani’s videos have been removed, but when people began taking legal action, she simply moved them to private view, restricted them to members-only, or reuploaded them to her website, ensuring the harassment could continue.

The Copyright Claims Board

The Copyright Claims Board (CCB) is a legal process separate from the court system and does not require attorneys. It was created to offer an affordable way to resolve small copyright disputes. The system was designed to help individual creators and rights holders who can't afford federal court. But for Danielle Robertson, the CCB became a weapon. Instead of using it to protect her own intellectual property, she used it to harass others.

According to the official CCB website, filing a claim involves two separate payments. The first payment of forty dollars is due when the claim is initially filed. If the claim passes compliance review and the person being sued does not opt out, a second payment of sixty dollars becomes mandatory. That brings the total cost of a fully processed claim to one hundred dollars. There’s also a six-dollar fee if someone appoints themselves as a service agent when filing.

Danielle Robertson filed at least thirteen claims through the CCB under her name. Most of those claims passed the compliance stage, meaning she likely paid the full one hundred dollars each time. That adds up to around thirteen hundred dollars spent on copyright filings alone. If she used aliases or designated herself as an agent under different names, the total cost could be even higher.

This level of spending is unusual. Most people would think twice before spending over a thousand dollars on legal filings, especially when the claims are being dismissed one after another. But Danielle wasn’t deterred. She kept going. Even after her claims failed, and even after the CCB scheduled bad faith hearings due to her submitting false information, she continued to file more.

This pattern is about power, not copyright. Danielle has shown that she’s willing to invest both money and time to create intimidation campaigns. She didn’t use the CCB to protect creative work. She used it to go after people she had personal issues with, including fellow content creators and former allies.

The CCB was meant to be a tool for justice. But in the hands of someone like Danielle Robertson, it became a way to sidestep YouTube’s copyright policies and target content creators she disliked. And she paid to do all this, with little to no return on her investment.

Bad Faith Hearing

One of the most striking aspects of Danielle Robertson’s pattern is how she has responded in formal proceedings, especially before the CCB.

In the case involving a YouTube personality named Madgie the Black Owl (docket number 25‑CCB‑0317), a bad-faith hearing was scheduled for August 13, 2025. In her official response, Danielle reportedly provided false information, contradicting documents already on file with the Copyright Claims Board. These inconsistencies led the CCB to deem the matter worthy of a formal hearing under bad faith rules.

This is revealing. Danielle didn’t just file claims; she lied. She pressed forward, using officially filed responses that conflicted with other publicly accessible CCB records, triggering CCB’s bad-faith protocols. This isn’t a mistake. It’s evidence of intent.

When the system allows claims made in bad faith to advance, even after contradictory or false information has been submitted, it becomes a tool for abuse, not justice. Danielle showed no hesitation. Instead of backing down, she pushed on, driving the process ahead even when the outcome was trending against her.

In this case, the evidence wasn’t about copyright. It was about Daniel Robertson’s willingness to manipulate a legal venue to silence someone, even when it required misrepresentation.

Turning Point: The Shrinking Docket and Erased Record

When I first started tracking Danielle Robertson’s activity with the Copyright Claims Board, there were over a dozen active or recently closed cases in her name. These disputes were not random. They were a string of filings against me, against other creators, and even against people who had once been part of her online circle.

By August 13, 2025, the date of her bad faith hearing, the public record looked different. Nearly everything was gone. The only filings left in the CCB system were:

Robertson v. Warren (25-CCB-0319), Robertson v. Coiciou-Germain (25-CCB-0318), and Robertson v. Coiciou-Germain (25-CCB-0317).

Every other case had been withdrawn, dismissed, or otherwise cleared from public view.

When I searched for my case, 25-CCB-0169, it disappeared too. There was no history of the docket when I searched for my name. It was as if the claim had never existed.

But I still have the dismissal order. It’s proof that Danielle filed against me, failed to serve me within the legal deadline, and as a result, the Board dismissed it. Removing it from the public search results doesn’t negate the fact that it happened; it just makes it harder for others to see the pattern.

Between the missing cases and my deleted record, the timing says a lot. Danielle entered her bad-faith hearing with a long trail of questionable claims. She came out of it with nearly nothing left on the docket. Whether she retracted those cases herself to avoid scrutiny, or they were closed because they wouldn’t survive a hearing, one thing is for sure: her public CCB footprint has collapsed.

Platform Pushback

After Danielle Robertson’s bad-faith hearing and the sudden disappearance of most of her Copyright Claims Board filings, the cracks in her online empire became harder to hide.

Even YouTube, where she had operated for years without apparent consequence, appeared to take notice. Word began circulating that her channel had been hit with a strike. For a creator whose entire brand was built on “calling out” others and weaponizing platform tools, a YouTube strike is a serious consequence. Strikes can be issued for bullying, harassment, violations of an individual's privacy, or copyright abuse, the same types of behavior Danielle had been accused of repeatedly.

It is hard to ignore the irony. Danielle had spent years manipulating YouTube’s systems to punish other creators, but now the platform itself was flagging her content.

Bad-Faith CCB Claims Dismissed

Year after year, Danielle Robertson managed to twist the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) into her weapon. She filed endless claims that cost real money to submit and were supposed to protect authentic creators. But instead of protecting her intellectual property, she used the process to harass, intimidate, and silence her critics.

That strategy finally backfired.

On August 15, 2025, an order was issued by the CCB in two of Danielle’s cases: 25-CCB-0317 and 25-CCB-0318, both filed against YouTube creator Madgie the Black Owl (legal name Madgie Coicou-Germain). In a rare move, the Board dismissed the claims and also found that Danielle had acted in bad faith.

The order laid out the evidence in black and white. Danielle knowingly entered a false U.S. mailing address for Madgie, but had already admitted in an unrelated federal lawsuit that Madgie lived in Canada. The CCB makes it crystal clear that foreign residents cannot be sued in this forum. The online filing system even flashes warnings to stop people from doing exactly what Danielle did. Even still, she went around those safeguards by plugging in a fake Los Angeles address with a California zip code, while listing an actual Canadian street name.

The Board was blunt in its response. Point blank, her explanation was not credible. She claimed she had been “misled” by incorrect contact information, but the record spoke for itself. She had been forewarned. She had filed at least thirteen other cases before. She had sworn under penalty of perjury that the details were accurate. And most importantly, she knew Madgie lived in Canada way before she filed the claims against her.

When the Board scheduled a virtual hearing on August 13, Danielle didn’t bother to show up. There was no notice, no email, and no excuse for her not appearing. After all, she had been advised. The Official waited for about 15 minutes, then ended the conference.

The final ruling could not be clearer. Danielle Robertson engaged in bad-faith conduct. The Board cautioned her that if she tries this again, she could face penalties, including a one-year ban on filing any claims in the future with the CCB.

For those of us who have been on the receiving end of her tactics, this wasn’t just an average dismissal. It was validation. It was proof of what we’ve been saying all along: that Danielle has been abusing legal systems, lying on filings, and using the CCB as just another extension of her harassment campaign.

And now, the same system she exploited has officially held her accountable for it.

Failed Strikes and Dismissed Claims

Danielle Robertson didn’t just stop at harassment videos and smear campaigns. She learned how to exploit YouTube’s copyright strike system to eliminate content creators. All someone needs is three copyright strikes on YouTube, and their channel could be terminated. Dani weaponized that rule by filing strikes against creators she wanted quiet.

Her strikes against me didn’t stick. Yes, YouTube temporarily removed two of my videos exposing her and her cult because I had used a small portion of her videos where she was harassing me. But when YouTube reviewed them, they found no copyright violation. My videos were protected under fair use, and the strikes were revoked.

When that didn’t work, Danielle escalated her attacks to the Copyright Claims Board (CCB). She filed CCB Case No. 25-CCB-0169 against me. As part of the process, YouTube removed two of my videos once her claim was filed. I had to wait nearly three months before I could submit a counterclaim to YouTube, until the CCB officially dismissed her case against me.

For months, I watched her try to manipulate the process, hoping the system would turn in her favor. But in the end, the case was dismissed without prejudice. Danielle never properly served me, which is a required step in the process.

This was not merely an oversight; it was part of her pattern. Instead of pursuing claims in good faith, she filed them to intimidate and harass. And when she couldn’t follow through, the case crumbled.

Between YouTube rejecting her copyright strikes and the CCB dismissing her claim, it was evident that Danielle wasn’t trying to protect intellectual property. She was using unethical methods to silence critics.

And yet, even in defeat, she refused to stop. If one door closed, she went looking for another. YouTube strikes failed. The CCB dismissed her. But the harassment continued.

Tips for Content Creators Under Attack

When you’re a content creator, copyright systems can feel like a two-edged sword. They’re supposed to protect your work; however, in the wrong hands, they can be used as a maneuver to silence you. I learned this the hard way. Nevertheless, I also learned how to respond and protect myself. Here are some tips that might help other creators who find themselves in a similar position.

First, don’t panic when you receive a copyright strike. Take a breath and carefully review the claim. Sometimes we assume the worst. Keep in mind, strikes can be disputed. Check out YouTube’s Copyright Center and read their guidelines. Educate yourself on what qualifies as fair use, commentary, or original content.

Second, make it a habit to respond with documentation. Keep emails, screenshots, and any other records that prove your work is original. If clips were used under fair use (for commentary, criticism, or education), be transparent in your counter-notification. YouTube is more likely to side with you if you show proof.

Third, check the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) database if you ever get notice of a filing. A CCB filing is a public record, and you can confirm whether a claim against you is legitimate. If something doesn’t look right, like a fake name, incorrect address, or other inconsistencies, take note. That information can help you defend yourself.

Fourth, don’t be afraid to reach out to the platform directly. When Danielle filed her bogus strikes, I reached out to YouTube’s copyright team with the dismissal order. They took heed, and one of my videos was reinstated. Platforms are not perfect, but they are starting to pay attention to patterns of abuse and serial bad-faith actors.

Fifth, document your story publicly if you feel safe doing so. Videos, blog posts, podcasts, or even social media updates can raise awareness and prevent others from falling into the same trap. When harassment happens quietly, abusers thrive.

Lastly, take care of yourself. These attacks are designed to wear you down and cause distress. Take a break if you need to. Talk to other creators who understand the process. And if things escalate into legal harassment, consult an attorney to protect your rights.

The truth is that copyright laws were not invented to be used as weapons against critics. They exist to protect creativity, not to mute it. When you are aware of the policies and keep good records, you’re in a stronger position to stand your ground.