In my opinion NDAs are worthless (in most cases) and gives a false sense of ownership protection. As far as code reviews, you absolutely should include at least one. I know of a case directly in which the outsourced developer "accidently" left their API endpoint. Had it went into production they would see all sorts of things.
The South Bay (Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa, parts of Torrance) is a great place to live. It's relatively close to Downtown LA (8-12 miles). Driving from South Bay to west LA is only 30 mins so the drive isn't horrible. Driving from the valley to West LA is horrible. South Bay and Valley are great for families. Having lived in NY for a few decades, then to NC, LA traffic is not that bad considering. It's more about how to navigate and that's where Waze is really helpful.
Google has publicly stated that AMP versions of content will appear higher than non AMP pages in search results. This is not a secret. Ad support has already been a feature as of the last few months.
AMP is no different than Facebook IA. Both are designed to make pages load faster in so much it really benefits the platform it's on. You can load AMP pages directly and the framework itself relies on only rendering elements when needed. While the number of 3rd party embeds (for example) is limited, it is growing. Outside of keeping the wall garden up, there are obvious user benefits though it's too early.
Because it's easier to regulate knowing more people download / stream than upload. Only people in general uploading significant data are business or file sharing.
With that being said, if they own the right to publicity or copyrights now or represent the artist, it's going to be tough to fight. If it was a personal blog they may be able to go after you personally. But if they are a legitimate rights holder you will spend multiples more trying to fight it on the basis of not knowing about copyrights or not having made money from it.
You should request documentation to the matter and speak with an attorney.
Paying the $168 would be much cheaper than seeking legal consultation. And the lawyer would just tell him to pay up. As other commenters pointed out, it's a pretty clear-cut case of copyright infringement and he'd lose (at great expense) if he tried to fight it in court.
"Am I headed into major legal issues if I ignore this?"
If you ignore the notice, they'll take the case to court. If you don't show up at the trial to defend your case, they'll get a summary judgement against you and the court will order you to pay the $168 plus their attorneys fees.
