Even if read as a literal promise, it's being made to the harassers, not their victims! And what is harassment? What is bullying? To whom will the identity be revealed? What specific information does YOLO even have about anyone's identity? Maybe this is clarified in a TOS somewhere but I don't know.

I also have a couple of serious concerns about basic logic of the complaint, but I don't know how they could be handled at the MTD stage: 1) Plaintiffs take for granted the existence of some recognizable "standard of care" or "best practices" in operating a messaging app marketed towards teens; 2) Plaintiffs treat it as a given throughout the complaint that following such a standard would have prevented some or all of their injuries.

The part of the complaint I find least absurd is the hammering on YOLO's alleged total failure to field complaints, most especially the fact the email address YOLO had posted as its point of contact for law enforcement did not even exist, and would simply bounce back any inbound mail. But it still strikes me as extremely speculative that "perfect" performance would have accomplished anything.

To the contrary, plaintiffs emphasize the provision of anonymous messaging services to teens as "inherently dangerous" (as if definitively non-anonymous messaging services are safe or technically possible). This is of course to further the argument that defendants were negligent, but to me it borders on an admission that plaintiffs seek to enforce an impossible standard.

I'm disappointed the 9th circuit thought any of this was novel. An explicit motivation for Section 230 was stimulating a vibrant marketplace of speech fora that experimented with content standards and moderation schemes. And the relationship of that to TOS "promises" goes all the way back to Prodigy: one of the plaintiff's arguments centered on Prodigy's representations it would decline to publish material violating terms.