So maybe it's a ToS violation?
(This isn't defending the person issuing copyright strikes. Their behavior, right or wrong, just isn't perjury. I think. Good thing I'm not anyone's lawyer.)
A copyrighted video might not be uploaded to YouTube, in which case you'd have to fall back on the video creation date, which would have to be manually added in their DB (e.g. Hollywood produced movies).
You can also have leaks of videos before their official release. Admittedly a rare scenario that should can be accounted for in other ways (i.e. skip this check if before upload).
Correct, but in this case we know there was no earlier video anywhere, so the only conclusion to draw is that they simply weren't checking the date at all. If the only "source" video being compared with the "offending" video had a newer upload date, the claim never should have been allowed to happen. If there's truly some external video with an earlier upload date, compare to that.
Hello! This was a false positive in our systems at @ChainPatrol . We are retracting the takedown request, and will conduct a full post-mortem to ensure this does not happen again.
We have been combatting a huge volume of fake YouTube videos that are attempting to steal user funds. Unfortunately, in our mission to protect users from scams, false positives (very) occasionally slip through.
We are actively working to reduce how often this happens, because it's never our intent to flag legitimate videos. We're very sorry about this! Will keep you posted on the takedown retraction.