The DMCA provides a safe harbour provision for hosts who take down content after a notice.

Libel / slander don't require a take down, but also don't provide any protection for the hosting company.

If this goes to court then the Yes Men won't be able to pay for the NRAs legal fees. Which means that the lawyers will be tempted to go after DO to get paid.

DO is a low cost hosting company. You can't expect them to ride or die.

> Unlike a DCMA, the compliant does not require DO to take down the web site.

Does it? Please link to the legislation describing the specific complaint made.

That's not how law works, everything is permitted until it's forbidden. So given the absence of legislation they do not have to.

You're assuming it is a formless complaint, as opposed to a complaint conforming with specific legislation. If you know it is a formless complaint, can you please point to the source of your knowledge on that?

As far as I'm aware the complaint has not been made public. But unless you can point to a single piece of "formed" legislation for this, I'm certainly going to assume it is formless. Both because every trademark complaint I've seen has been formless, and it is impossible to disprove that a law exists in America, only the converse.

But Digital Ocean could be partly accountable in a libel / slander suit if they don't take action after being notified.

Taking down the content is the easiest way not to end up as co-defendants with the Yes Men.

No, they could not, that's prevented by this law: https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230

(This is specific enough advice I feel I must say that I am not a lawyer, just a knowledge layperson)