YouTuber Loses Lawsuit Over Account Suspension–Hall v. YouTube
The court summarizes the facts:
In April 2024, Hall became involved in a public feud with another YouTube user, “MoneyBoy Tr3y,” (Tr3y”) which led to the exchange of multiple DMCA takedown notices between the two. Hall alleges that Tr3y submitted false copyright claims against Hall’s videos, leading to YouTube suspending Hall’s channels. Hall also submitted takedown notices of his own against Tr3y, claiming infringement of Hall’s video “Tyler Hero Feat. Christy.”
Hall alleges that these takedown notices, as well as complaints about racist hate speech and defamatory content appearing in TR3Y and other’s YouTube channels, were mishandled by YouTube. According to Hall, YouTube reinstated allegedly infringing content uploaded by Tr3y despite Hall’s objections and failed to act on his counter-notifications or harassment complaints. Hall also contends that YouTube improperly removed his content, failed to protect him from harassment by other users, and unfairly terminated his channels, all in breach of YouTube’s Terms of Service (“TOS”) and incorporated Community Guidelines.
If you’ve been reading the blog for a while, you have a pretty good idea of how this case will end.
Contract Breach. The (pro se) complaint doesn’t specify which TOS provisions YouTube allegedly breached: “the TOS and Community Guidelines cover dozens of topics; without identifying the specific provisions that Hall believes YouTube violated, YouTube does not have fair notice of the basis or bases of Hall’s contract-based claims.” Also, “YouTube’s TOS expressly reserves broad discretion to YouTube to remove or retain content and disclaims any obligation to host content.” The court summarizes:
Hall’s allegations do not identify any specific benefit under the TOS that YouTube wrongfully withheld from him—particularly one that the TOS did not already reserve YouTube the right to deny in its discretion.
Tort Claims. Hall complained that YouTube didn’t honor his takedown notices aganst his rival or his putback notices. “He argues that YouTube had a duty, both statutory and contractual, to process the DMCA notices claims in a timely and responsible manner and to take action against content that violated YouTube’s Community Guidelines.”
The court says Google didn’t owe Hall a duty:
Online platforms do not owe their users a general duty of care to manage or investigate DMCA takedown notices or counternotices or to respond harassment reports unless the contract entered into “itself imposes a duty to protect.”
Note how statutory procedural due process obligations can impose these duties, in mostly pernicious ways by putting services in the position to navigate contested circumstances.
Also note that Section 512 imposes consequences for failing to honor takedown notices (and, to a lesser extent, putback notices). Hall’s copyright claims failed because he didn’t have a registration before filing. The opinion does not mention 512(f), which could also create liability for someone based on bad takedown or putback notices.
Section 230 also applies to Hall’s claims:
Hall’s tort claims are based only on YouTube’s content moderation acts (taking down content or channels or allowing content and channels), and for that reason are barred by Section 230 immunity. Courts have consistently held that online platforms are not liable for their decisions to publish, remove, or allow third-party content. Hall’s allegations are premised on YouTube’s decisions to allow or disallow specific videos and to host or shut down channels, which all falls squarely within Section 230 immunity…
Hall’s theory is entirely rooted in YouTube’s management—or mismanagement—of user-generated videos and channels. That conduct is at the heart of, and is protected by, Section 230.
Another failed account termination/content removal case.
Case Citation: Hall v. YouTube, LLC, 2025 WL 1482007 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2025). The CourtListener page.