It's not necessarily true that a system that requires a claimant to demonstrate ownership
also requires a user to pre-emptively prove it.
You could have a law that provides a safe harbor provision but also requires claims to be honest and backed-up to "some" level of confidence.
The law as it stands does appear to have the possibility of the penalty of perjury for intentional misuse, but, apparently, a comma means that apparently this is actually only applicable to a small part of the claim[1], and as far as I know has never done so. I do not know if this is because the law doesn't make definitions clear enough to demonstrate bad-faith in court (including that comma), or the legal system in general simply doesn't care to enforce the law.
[1]: https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51541/has-anyone-bee...
