You have to adhere to the terms of the copyright license granted in this case by upstream License. If you do not, you lose the copyright license and the ability to redistribute under any terms.

Maybe you're thinking of license subsumption? That's when (say) a project under a more restrictive license (e.g. Apache License 2.0) bundles a dependency which is under a more permissive license (e.g. MIT), yet the package is advertised as being under "Apache License 2.0" even though the licensing is polyglot.

But even under subsumption, you still don't get to do things like removing copyright notices or declaring unilaterally that somebody else's work is now under some new license they didn't grant. The license headers in the bundled dependency's source files don't get modified, it's just that you summarize the terms of the complete package because fulfilling the terms of the ALv2 suffices to fulfill the terms of the MIT license. (Sort of. License subsumption is a complicated issue.)

- https://github.com/Lutando/Akkatecture/issues/19

- https://github.com/Grover-c13/PokeGOAPI-Java/issues/490

- https://github.com/dsiguide/dsiguide.github.io/issues/14

Such problems do not end up in court for two reasons.

First, it costs very little to bring a project into compliance with a permissive license — all you need to do is give attribution. It's not like GPL enforcement, where you have to choose whether to open source your proprietary code or to purge the GPL'd code from the project in order to achieve compliance.

Second, the culture of permissively licensed open source communities is such that they don't generally want to foster a litigious environment which would frighten business users.