Couldn't it be argued that it (take down notice for 127.0.0.1) can -only- be a deliberate misstatement? WB can not argue that the 'chance' of 127.0.0.1 hosting

Couldn't it be argued that it (take down notice for 127.0.0.1) can -only- be a deliberate misstatement? WB can not argue that the 'chance' of 127.0.0.1 hosting copyrighted content is anything but non-zero. This means that sending out take down notices regarding 127.0.0.1 are nonsense (i.e. deliberate misstatement).