YouTuber Loses Account Suspension Case Again–Hall v. YouTube

This is a futile account termination/content removal case, like dozens before it. Prior blog post. So I’m blogging this ruling for completion, not significance.

After the prior dismissal, the YouTuber filed an amended complaint:

The FAC complains that YouTube engaged in improper acts in 2024 and 2025 with respect to Hall and his YouTube channels, specifically: (i) YouTube demonetized his channel for 3 months in 2024 based on purported violation of “reused content” of others; (ii) YouTube failed to handle DMCA notices and counter-notices appropriately and failed to address the misuse of DMCA notices; (iii) YouTube failed to appropriately handle racist attacks, systemic abuse, and harassment directed to Hall from other content creators; (iv) YouTube suspended Hall’s channel for seven days in February 2025 based on false allegations that Hall had “sexualized a minor;” and (v) YouTube has engaged in a pattern of retaliatory channel suspensions.

Once again, the TOS and 230 carry the day.

Breach of Contract

Hall “fails to identify any specific promises in the TOS or in the Community Guidelines that he believes YouTube breached. As before, Hall makes general references to violations of the TOS and Community Guidelines but does not identify any language in those policies where YouTube promised to do anything or take specific actions that YouTube then breached.”

Also,

Each of the acts Hall complains of in his FAC concerns how YouTube handled the DMCA notices and counter notices, what content of Hall or third-parties YouTube kept up or took down, and YouTube’s suspension of his channel for three months in 2024 and for seven days in 2025. Those acts cannot constitute a breach of YouTube’s TOS because the TOS expressly allows YouTube discretion in those matters

With respect to the channel suspension, “the TOS expressly allow YouTube broad
discretion in terminating accounts or restricting access to services…Hall has identified no promise by YouTube that precluded it from suspending his channel based on a DMCA notice filed by a third-party.” Also, “generalized public statements of intent do not create enforceable contractual promises.” Cite to Prager U v Google.

Negligence and Tortious Interference

These claims fail on their prima facie elements. Also, “all of Hall’s claims are based on actions YouTube’s content moderation: they are based on acts YouTube took or did not take with respect to DMCA notices and suspension or failure to suspend Hall’s or other content creators’ channels. For that reason, Hall’s tort claims are barred by Section 230 immunity.”

The court summarizes this case:

Hall is unhappy with how YouTube has responded to DMCA notices and its subsequent actions. For the reasons identified above, YouTube’s TOS give YouTube broad discretion in making its content moderation decisions and Section 230 bars tort claims based on those content moderation decisions

Case Citation: Hall v. YouTube LLC, 2025 WL 3265494 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2025). CourtListener page.