Well, not quite, at least by my reading. It says specifically:
"that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
In other words they are acting on behalf of the owner of the owners of the content being infringed (the content located at the URLs).
If the content at the URLs is NOT owned by Wicked, than they are claiming to represent the owner of the content at those locations, when they are in fact not.
> If the content at the URLs is NOT owned by Wicked, than they are claiming to represent the owner of the content at those locations, when they are in fact not.
No, there are two separate claims:
1) that the person represents the owner of a particular copyrighted work, and
2) that particular hosted content violates the copyright on the particular copyrighted work.
Only the first of those is under penalty of perjury. If the particular identified copyrighted work is owned by the party represented, then even if the particular identified hosted content doesn't violate the copyright of the identified work, there is no perjury issue (there may be a knowing false claim of infringement issue, but that requires proving that the person sending the notice knew that the identified hosted content did not infringe.)
"that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
In other words they are acting on behalf of the owner of the owners of the content being infringed (the content located at the URLs).
If the content at the URLs is NOT owned by Wicked, than they are claiming to represent the owner of the content at those locations, when they are in fact not.