YouTube (Again) Defeats Lawsuit Over Content Removal–Lewis v. Google
Lewis ran a YouTube channel, “Misandry Today.” (Misandry = hatred of men). He claims YouTube removed or demonetized some of his videos. The district court rejected his lawsuit. In a short unpublished memo opinion that basically echoes the district court’s analysis, the Ninth Circuit does too.
Constitutional Challenge Against Section 230. Lewis didn’t have standing to challenge Section 230’s constitutionality because any “injury” he suffered did not relate to Section 230. YouTube took its action as a private actor, not a state actor; and Section 230 provides an immunity from suit, not a cause of action.
First Amendment Violations. YouTube is not a state actor (cite to PragerU v. Google).
Title II of Civil Rights Act. “YouTube’s websites are not a ‘place of public accommodation.’…To conclude Google or YouTube were places of public accommodation under Title II ‘would obfuscate the term ‘place’ and render nugatory the examples Congress provides to illuminate the meaning of that term.'”
Lanham Act False Advertising. Lewis lacked standing because he sued as a consumer, not a competitor.
Fraud by Omission. Lewis didn’t allege any duty to disclose that YouTube failed to honor. Plus, “YouTube disclosed that it reviews flagged content to determine whether it violates the Community Guidelines, which in turn prohibit ‘Hateful content.’ YouTube’s monetization policies elaborate that ‘Hateful content’ is ineligible for monetization.”
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. YouTube’s contract expressly gave it the right to act, which eliminates any overlapping implied claim.
Tortious Interference. Lewis didn’t allege that YouTube knew of any affected third party.
What a bogus lawsuit. Maybe Lewis will find a more enthusiastic reception on Parler. Plaintiff’s counsel was Andrew Martin of Martin and Peters PLLC. 💯
Case citation: Lewis v. Google LLC, 2021 WL 1423118 (9th Cir. April 15, 2021)
Selected Related Posts About State Action Claims
- When It Came to @RealDonaldTrump, Twitter Couldn’t Please Everyone–Rutenberg v. Twitter
- Another Must-Carry Lawsuit Against YouTube Fails–Daniels v Alphabet
- Newspaper Isn’t State Actor–Plotkin v. Astorian
- An Account Suspension Case Fails Again–Perez v. LinkedIn
- Are Social Media Services “State Actors” or “Common Carriers”?
- Google and Twitter Defeat Lawsuit Over Account Suspensions/Terminations–DeLima v. Google
- More Plaintiffs (and Lawyers) Need To Be Reminded That YouTube Isn’t a State Actor–Divino v. Google
- Facebook Isn’t a Constructive Public Trust–Cameron Atkinson v. Facebook
- Google and YouTube Aren’t “Censoring” Breitbart Comments–Belknap v. Alphabet
- LinkedIn Isn’t a State Actor–Perez v. LinkedIn
- Section 230 Preempts Another Facebook Account Termination Case–Zimmerman v. Facebook
- Section 230 Ends Demonetized YouTuber’s Lawsuit–Lewis v. Google
- Court Rejects Another Lawsuit Alleging that Internet Companies Suppress Conservative Views–Freedom Watch v. Google
- Another Suspended Twitter User Loses in Court–Wilson v. Twitter
- First Voters Reject Tulsi Gabbard, Then a Judge Does–Gabbard v. Google
- YouTube Isn’t a State Actor (DUH)–PragerU v. Google
- Facebook Still Isn’t Obligated to Publish Russian Troll Content–FAN v. Facebook
- Vimeo Defeats Lawsuit for Terminating Account That Posted Conversion Therapy Videos–Domen v. Vimeo
- Russia Fucked With American Democracy, But It Can’t Fuck With Section 230–Federal Agency of News v. Facebook
- Private Publishers Aren’t State Actors–Manhattan Community Access v. Halleck
- Your Periodic Reminder That Facebook Isn’t a State Actor–Williby v. Zuckerberg
- Section 230 Protects Facebook’s Account and Content Restriction Decisions–Ebeid v. Facebook
- Court Tosses Antitrust Claims That Internet Giants Are Biased Against Conservatives–Freedom Watch v. Google
- Twitter Isn’t a Shopping Mall for First Amendment Purposes (Duh)–Johnson v. Twitter
- YouTube Isn’t a Company Town (Duh)–Prager University v. Google
- Facebook Defeats Lawsuit By User Suspended Over ‘Bowling Green Massacre’–Shulman v. Facebook
- Yelp, Twitter and Facebook Aren’t State Actors–Quigley v. Yelp
- Facebook Not Liable for Account Termination–Young v. Facebook
- Online Game Network Isn’t Company Town–Estavillo v. Sony
- Third Circuit Says Google Isn’t State Actor–Jayne v. Google Founders
- Ask.com Not Liable for Search Results or Indexing Decisions–Murawski v. Pataki
- Search Engines Defeat “Must-Carry” Lawsuit–Langdon v. Google
- KinderStart Lawsuit Dismissed (With Leave to Amend)
- ICANN Not a State Actor