Most big tech companies today try to build their own "walled garden" and are against interoperability. The "copyright" excuse is often used to shut down screen-scrapers or alternative clients (which is essentially what youtube-dl is), despite having even less legal standing (you could argue that YouTube has lots of copyrighted content that can and maybe did get copied, but in the case of alternative clients for social media, the majority of people - who are the original copyright holders for their content - would not care about which client is used to access the content they post). Defending youtube-dl would - if successful, set a legal precedent for the entire industry, and if unsuccessful would still prevent this company from ever using that same reason to shut down alternative clients targeting their own service.
Furthermore, if you are in any way funded by advertising or "engagement" (which is again, the majority of big user-facing tech today), I don't think messing with the RIAA or MPAA is a good strategy. Your advertisers depend on them more than on you, and if the RIAA informally "suggests" them to go to a different ad publisher they totally would.
No major IT company is going to get anywhere near this. Successfully defending this wouldn't really benefit the company (it's not like winning this upcoming lawsuit would absolve you of copyright, so that problem will remain - plus if you need to license content the now angry RIAA will be less likely to give you a good deal), might actually harm the company's own attempt at a walled garden, and would piss off a powerful industry that can influence your only funding source.
Furthermore, if you are in any way funded by advertising or "engagement" (which is again, the majority of big user-facing tech today), I don't think messing with the RIAA or MPAA is a good strategy. Your advertisers depend on them more than on you, and if the RIAA informally "suggests" them to go to a different ad publisher they totally would.
No major IT company is going to get anywhere near this. Successfully defending this wouldn't really benefit the company (it's not like winning this upcoming lawsuit would absolve you of copyright, so that problem will remain - plus if you need to license content the now angry RIAA will be less likely to give you a good deal), might actually harm the company's own attempt at a walled garden, and would piss off a powerful industry that can influence your only funding source.