Case 5:19-cv-04749-VKD Document 97 Filed 01/26/22 Page 1 of 141
`
`BROWNE GEORGE ROSS
`O’BRIEN ANNAGUEY & ELLIS LLP
`Peter Obstler (State Bar No. 171623)
` pobstler@bgrfirm.com
`44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1280
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Telephone: (415) 391-7100; Facsimile: (415) 391-7198
`BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP
`Pete Wilson (State Bar No. 35742)
` pwilson@bgrfirm.com
`Eric M. George (State Bar No. 166403)
` egeorge@bgrfirm.com
`Dennis S. Ellis (State Bar No. 178196)
` dellis@bgrfirm.com
`Debi A. Ramos (State Bar No. 135373)
` dramos@bgrfirm.com
`2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone: (310) 274-7100; Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Divino Group LLC, Chris
`Knight, Celso Dulay, Cameron Stiehl,
`BriaAndChrissy LLC, Bria Kam, Chrissy
`Chambers, Chase Ross, Brett Somers, and Lindsay
`Amer, Stephanie Frosch, Sal Cinequemani,
`Tamara Johnson and Greg Scarnici
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`vs.
`26
`27
`GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited liability
`company, YOUTUBE, LLC, a Delaware
`
`28 1392054.1limited liability company, and DOES 1-25,
`Case No. 5:19-cv-004749-VKD
`SECONDTHIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
`RESTITUTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
`DIVINO GROUP LLC, a California limited
`Case No. 5:19-cv-004749-VKD
`liability company, CHRIS KNIGHT, an
`SECONDTHIRD AMENDED CLASS
`individual, CELSO DULAY, an individual,
`ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,
`CAMERON STIEHL, an individual,
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, RESTITUTION,
`BRIAANDCHRISSY LLC, a Georgia limited
`AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`liability company, BRIA KAM, an individual,
`CHRISSY CHAMBERS, an individual,
`CHASE ROSS, an individual, BRETT
`SOMERS, an individual, and LINDSAY
`AMER, an individual, STEPHANIE FROSCH,
`an individual, SAL CINEQUEMANI, an
`individual, TAMARA JOHNSON, an
`individual, and GREG SCARNICI, an
`individual,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Judge: Hon. Virginia DeMarchi
`Crtrm: 2
`
`Action Filed: August 13, 2019
`Trial Date: None Set
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04749-VKD Document 97 Filed 01/26/22 Page 2 of 141
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`
`Defendants.
`
`-2
`Case No. 5:19-cv-004749-VKD
`1392054.1
`SECONDTHIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
`RESTITUTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04749-VKD Document 97 Filed 01/26/22 Page 3 of 141
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE.....................................................1
`PARTIES .............................................................................................................................15
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..........................................................................................19
`A.
`Federal Question Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. §1331............................................19
`B.
`Class Action Fairness Act Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2) ....................20
`C.
`Supplemental Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. §1367 .................................................21
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS ..........................................................................1922
`A.
`The YouTube Platform ........................................................................................1922
`10
`B.
`YouTube Holds Itself Out As A Quintessential Forum For Freedom Of
`11
`Expression............................................................................................................2024
`12
`Defendants Flout The Fundamental “Free Expression” Bargain They Made
`With YouTubers...................................................................................................2326
`13
`Defendants Begin To Compete With YouTubers In The Proposed Class...........2528
`14
`Defendants’ Tool Kit Of Unlawful Speech Suppression.....................................2629
`15
`1.
`Restricted Mode.......................................................................................2630
`16
`2.
`Advertising Restrictions...........................................................................3034
`17
`3.
`AI Filtering Under Restricted Mode And Advertising Restrictions ........3135
`18
`4.
`Demonetizing Channels Wholesale .........................................................3337
`19
`5.
`Shadow Banning ......................................................................................3338
`20
`6.
`Deleting Thumbnail Images....................................................................3438
`21
`7.
`Cancelling And Stopping Subscribers’ New Video Notifications...........3539
`22
`8.
`Excluding Content From The “Up Next” Recommended Application
`23
`..................................................................................................................3741
`24
`Recommending Anti- Hate Speech In The “Up Next” Application
`Alongside Videos....................................................................................3741
`25
`Playing Anti- Advertisements Immediately Before Videos ...................3842
`10.
`26
`Including Anti- Hate Speech In Comments Appearing With Videos.....3842
`11.
`27
`28 1392054.1
`Other Unlawful Speech-Restricting Tools...............................................4145
`12.
`-i-
`Case No. 5:19-cv-004749-VKD
`SECONDTHIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
`RESTITUTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`C.
`
`D.
`E.
`
`9.
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04749-VKD Document 97 Filed 01/26/22 Page 4 of 141
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`Defendants Were Caught Censoring Users In 2017 ...........................................4246
`YouTube’s Promises To the YouTubers Were “Lip Service”............................4448
`Defendants Have And Continue To Violate The Rights Of Plaintiffs And The
`Community ..........................................................................................................4549
`1.
`Divino (GlitterBombTV.com’s GNews!) ................................................4549
`2.
`BriaAndChrissy LLC (BriaAndChrissy) .................................................5155
`3.
`Chase Ross...............................................................................................6367
`4.
`Brett Somers a/k/a AMP (Watts The Safeword)......................................7073
`5.
`Lindsay Amer (Queer Kid Stuff) .............................................................7579
`6.
`Stephanie Frosch (ElloSteph, ElloStephExtras and StephFrosch)...........7982
`7.
`Sal Cinquemani (SalBardo) .....................................................................8286
`8.
`Tamara Johnson (SVTV Network) ..........................................................8790
`9.
`Greg Scarnici (GregScarnici and Undercover Music) .............................9194
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ................................................................................9497
`V.
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment: 47 U.S.C. § 230(c) Violates The First
`And Fourteenth Amendments Of The U.S. Constitution (On Behalf Of Plaintiffs
`Individually And The YouTube Community Class)......................................................98101
`A.
`Plaintiffs Served Rule 5.1 Notice On The U.S. Attorney General. ...................99102
`B.
`Legal Controversies Currently Exist Regarding The Scope And
`Constitutionality Of 47 U.S.C. § 230(c). .........................................................100104
`1.
`An Actual Controversy Exists As To Whether 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)
`Immunizes Filtering And Restricting Internet Speech Based On The
`Identity Or Viewpoint Of The Speaker................................................103106
`An Actual Controversy Exists As To Whether Defendants’
`Determination That Plaintiffs’ Content Is “Otherwise Objectionable”
`Is Subject To Good Faith Review........................................................105108
`An Actual Controversy Exists As To Whether 47 U.S.C. § 230(c) Is
`Unconstitutional As Applied To Plaintiffs On These Facts.................106109
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Viewpoint-Based Discrimination In Violation Of The First
`Amendment To U. S. Constitution Pursuant To 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (On Behalf Of
`Plaintiffs Individually And The YouTube Community Class)..........................................107
`-ii
`Case No. 5:19-cv-004749-VKD
`1392054.1
`SECONDTHIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
`RESTITUTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`F.
`G.
`H.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04749-VKD Document 97 Filed 01/26/22 Page 5 of 141
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violation Of California Constitution Article I, Section 2 (On
`Behalf Of Plaintiffs Individually And The YouTube Community Class) ...................112110
`
`FOURTHTHIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violation Of California Unruh Civil Rights
`Act—Civil Code §§ 51, et seq. (On Behalf Of Plaintiffs And The YouTube
`Community Class) .......................................................................................................115112
`FIFTHFOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unfair Competition In Violation Of California
`Business And Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. (On Behalf Of Plaintiffs And The
`YouTube Community Class) .......................................................................................117114
`SIXTHFIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Breach Of Implied Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair
`Dealing (On Behalf Of Plaintiffs And The YouTube Community Class)...................118115
`SEVENTHSIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation Of The Lanham Act — 15 U.S.C. §§§
`1125 et seq. (On Behalf Of Plaintiffs ) ........................................................................119117
`EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Request For Declaratory Relief (On Behalf Of Plaintiffs
`And The YouTube Community Class) ..............................................................................122
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF ..........................................................................................................123121
`JURY DEMAND.....................................................................................................................125122
`
`-iii
`Case No. 5:19-cv-004749-VKD
`1392054.1
`SECONDTHIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
`RESTITUTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04749-VKD Document 97 Filed 01/26/22 Page 6 of 141
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order dated January 6, 2021 (DKT # 65),1 Plaintiffs Divino Group
`LLC d/b/a GlitterBombTV.com, which produces the online show “GNews!;”, Chris Knight, Celso
`Dulay, and Cameron Stiehl, which own GlitterBombTV.com and produce the online show
`“GNews!”; BriaAndChrissy LLC (d/b/a “BriaAndChrissy”),” which owns the channel
`youtube.com/BriaAndChrissy; Bria Kam, and Chrissy Chambers, Chase Ross, sole proprietor of
`youtube.com/which produce the YouTube channels “BriaAndChrissy” and “WonderWarriors”;
`Chase Ross, who produces the YouTube channel “uppercaseCHASE1”; Brett Somers, sole
`proprietor of youtube.com/Watts The Safeword; Lindsey Amer, sole proprietor of
`queerkidstuff.com,who produces the YouTube channel “WattsTheSafeword”; Lindsey Amer, who
`produces the YouTube channel “QueerKidStuff”; Stephanie Frosch, sole proprietor of
`youtube.com/who produces the YouTube channels “ellosteph” and youtube.com/“ellostephextras”;
`Sal Cinequemani (a.k.a “Sal Bardo”), sole proprietor of youtube.com/SalBardowho produces the
`YouTube channel “salbardo”; Tamara (Sheri) Johnson, sole proprietor of the channel
`youtube.com/SVTVNetwork and owner of SVTVNetwork.com, who produces the YouTube
`channel “SVTVNetwork”; and Greg Scarnici, an individual, sole proprietorowner of
`youtubegregscarnici.com/, who produces the YouTube channel “GregScarnici” (collectively
`referred to as “Plaintiffs”) bringrespectfully file this FirstThird Amended Complaint for damages,
`and equitable and declaratory relief (the “FACTAC”), individually, and on behalf of all persons
`similarly situated, against DefendantDefendants YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”) and its parent
`company, Google LLC (“Google”) (collectively referred to as “Google/YouTube” or “Defendants,”
`unless otherwise specified).
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`1 Because the Court’s January 6-Order appears to require leave of Court to add additional claims and
`25
`many issues of law remain undecided at this juncture, a proper basis to seek leave at this time does
`not exist for reasons of efficiency as well as law. Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek leave to add
`26
`additional substantive claims, including claims for breach of contract, equitable relief and for an
`accounting, once the Court has settled the threshold legal issues that govern those claims in this case
`27
`and in Newman v. Google LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-04011-LHK (N. D. Cal.) (Koh, J.).
`28 1392054.1 1736512.1
`-1
`Case No. 5:19-cv-004749-VKD
`SECONDTHIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
`RESTITUTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04749-VKD Document 97 Filed 01/26/22 Page 7 of 141
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`1.
`Plaintiffs are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual or Queer internet
`content creators, viewers, users, and consumers of the internet-based global video sharing social
`media platform “YouTube” who are and continue to be denied full, fair, and equal access to
`YouTube by Defendants Google/YouTube solely because of Plaintiffs’ sexual or gender
`orientation, identity, and/or viewpoints. That is LGBTQ discrimination, pure and simple. And it
`violates Plaintiffs’ civil, statutory, and contractual rights to use YouTube under identity and
`viewpoint -neutral, content-based rules and restrictions that Defendants warrant “apply equally to
`all” regardless of the usersa user’s sexual, gender, religious, political, or commercial identity or
`viewpointsviewpoint.
`10
`2.
`Each Plaintiff brings this lawsuit, on behalf of himself, herself, or itself individually,
`11
`and as a representative of a class and/or subclasses of other similarly situated persons whosewho use
`12
`the YouTube Platform, and whose legal rights have been violated by Defendants’ use of the data
`13
`regarding users’ gender, sexual orientation, religious, ethnic, racial, political, and/or commercial
`14
`and data driven identities and viewpoints, to restrain, discriminate against, economically crush, and
`15
`cleanse disfavored users from the YouTube Platform in direct violation of the usersPlaintiffs’ civil
`16
`and consumer rights.
`17
`3.
`Google/YouTubeDefendants systematically restrict, restrain, censor, block,
`18
`interfere, and falsely stigmatize Plaintiffs’ video content on YouTube by labeling the video content
`19
`as “inappropriate” or “otherwise objectionable,” without any reference to the actual video content or
`20
`its failurewhy it fails to comply with YouTube’s Terms of Service and content -based rules. Instead,
`21
`as Defendants have admitted, Plaintiffs’ content is not only restricted, demonetized, and stigmatized
`22
`as “inappropriate” orand “otherwise objectionable,” but Defendants have done so based on an
`23
`affirmative “policy” that denies Plaintiffs access to YouTube (including monetization, subscription,
`24
`advertising, and other content distribution products and services) because Plaintiffs are “gay.”
`25
`4.
`Defendants also have engaged in anticompetitive conduct, fraud, and express and
`26
`27
`implied violations of Plaintiffs’ consumer and contractual rights by using content -based filtering
`28 1392054.1 1736512.1and restrictions as a means to cleanse independent content creators like Plaintiffs from YouTube
`
`-2
`Case No. 5:19-cv-004749-VKD
`SECONDTHIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
`RESTITUTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`I.
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04749-VKD Document 97 Filed 01/26/22 Page 8 of 141
`
`and redirect thosePlaintiffs’ audiences and viewers to content that Google/YouTubeDefendants
`create, produce, or have a direct financial interest in.
`5.
`Finally, Google/YouTubeDefendants unlawfully use federal law to prohibit
`YouTube users, including Plaintiffs, from petitioning the courts for relief from Defendants’
`unlawful conduct in direct violation of Plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.
`Specifically, as they do here, Defendants invoke sectionssection 230(c)(1) and (2) of the
`Communication Decency Act12 to claim absolute legal immunity for any unlawful conduct related
`to content filtering merely because YouTube finds thethey find Plaintiffs’ sexual orientation or
`other, identity of the usertraits, or viewpoints to be “otherwise objectionable,” even if when
`userPlaintiffs’s underlying content is not. Consequently, Google/YouTube’sDefendants’
`invocation of §230(c) and its application of Section 230(c) to block well -pled and detailed
`allegations and party admissions of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination along with
`the other wrongs alleged in this case operates in violationwould violate Plaintiffs’ civil rights under
`the Free Speech and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
`6.
`Google/YouTubeDefendants’s scheme to restrain, interfere with, bar and ultimately
`cleanse disfavored content creators and users from the YouTube Platform was not undertaken for
`purposes of furthering any legitimate or lawful interest, such as the filtering, regulation, restriction,
`or need to curate harmful or unlawful video content23 on the YouTube Platform. Rather, the actions
`and conduct at issue in this lawsuit have little, if anything, to do with filtering the actual content of
`the videos uploaded to the YouTube Platform.
`7.
`Defendants’ unlawful actions, conduct, and practices that give rise to and form the
`core basis and premise of this lawsuit all involve and are based upon Google/YouTuberelate to
`Defendants’s unlawful use of data regarding the video creators,’, subscribers,’, or viewers’ gender,
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`12 47 U.S.C. § 230(c) (the “CDA” or “Section §230(c)”).
`25
`23 “Video content,” here refers to the actual video material which a creator uploads to the YouTube
`Platform, which can be viewed by subscribers to a creator’s channel or random viewers on the
`26
`platform. It is distinguished from metadata regarding the video, such as tags, descriptions and titles;
`data regarding the identity of or information about the person posting the video; or data regarding
`27
`the identity of or information about the person viewing the video.
`28 1392054.1 1736512.1
`-3
`Case No. 5:19-cv-004749-VKD
`SECONDTHIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
`RESTITUTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04749-VKD Document 97 Filed 01/26/22 Page 9 of 141
`
`sexual, orientation, race, ethnicity, commercial, or political identities or viewpoints. Specifically,
`Google/YouTubeDefendants filter, regulate, restrict, and censor videos and user access to the
`YouTube Platform, based not on video content (—the audio or images a video depicts, or the
`dialogue presented) -- contains—but on the personal, sexual, ethnic, religious, commercial or
`political identities or viewpoints of the user3.4 Defendants claim videos are “inappropriate” and
`“otherwise objectionable” as a pretext to “cleanse” the YouTube Platform of third -party content
`creators who upload videos for the Community, and their followers who, based on Defendants
`absolute and unfettered discretion and power,and the YouTube Community, and who compete with
`orGoogle/YouTube for viewership and do not further Google/YouTube’s corporate profits, political
`interests, or business plans.
`8.
`Furthermore, Google/YouTubeDefendants’s cleansing of independent video content
`creators is not limited to discriminating against those creators and users who identify as, or express
`viewpoints. Documented evidence exists and lawsuits are pending or are being threatened by
`independent third -party video creators and loyal users of the YouTube Platform who have been
`victimized by Defendants’ practices because of the users’their race, religion, political affiliations, or
`commercial status. Google/YouTube is using identity based censorship to determine who can and
`cannot continue to use the YouTube Platform.
`9.
`Defendants’ exercise, control, and regulation and absolute dominion over the
`filtering, regulation, restriction, censorship, distribution, monetization, advertising, data collection,
`viewer reach and access to content on the YouTube Platform, the world’s largest forum for video
`content, expression, and communication --online videos. Defendants exercise their control in a
`manner that is discriminatory, and unlawful, and violates the civil and consumer rights of more than
`2.3 billion YouTube users.
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`25
`34 The “user” refers to both thecontent creators who upload videos, and the people who access those
`videos on the YouTube Platform, and. The term includes subscribers to channels, subscribers who
`26
`pay for ad free video services, and viewers who are simply accessing the YouTube Platform using
`either individual accounts created online, or using accounts held by institutions such as libraries,
`27
`schools, and private companies.
`28 1392054.1 1736512.1
`-4
`Case No. 5:19-cv-004749-VKD
`SECONDTHIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
`RESTITUTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04749-VKD Document 97 Filed 01/26/22 Page 10 of 141
`
`YouTube was founded, built, and operatedoperates as an “open” internet platform
`10.
`for profit. Based on YouTube’s Mission Statement, Terms Of Service, marketing, advertising,
`solicitations, and representations to consumers, Defendants solicit and induce the public to post,
`view, and communicate through video content on the YouTube platform by inviting the public to
`use YouTube as a place to engage in “Freedom of Expression,” “Freedom of Information,”
`“Freedom of Opportunity,” and “Freedom to Belong.”45 Everyone who use the YouTube
`Platform is accorded the status of “members” of a public “YouTube Community,” whose use and
`access ofto the platform areis governed by viewpoint-neutral, content-based rules and regulations
`which Defendants refer to as “Community Guidelines.” Google/YouTubeDefendants represent and
`warrant that these freedoms apply to all Community Members and shall be exercised by and
`protected for each and every user. According to Defendants, the public is entitled to post, view,
`communicate, and share information and ideas through video content, subject only to “viewpoint
`-neutral”, content -based filtering rules and restraints that “apply equally to everyone.” Defendants
`represent these rules are based only on the content of the video, NOT the personal identity or
`viewpoint of the video’s creator or its viewer.
`11.
`In return for granting the public access to a global, non-discriminatory, viewpoint
`-neutral forum for creating, posting, marketing, distributing and sharing video content, YouTube’s
`users give Google/YouTubeDefendants certain rights that permit Defendants to monetize the user’s
`video and thetheir videos, viewership or audience for that video, and audiences. This includes the
`right of Defendants to use any of thetheir video content of its users to sell advertising and obtain
`revenue from advertisers, as well as to solicit, market, and sell to users, Defendants’ own
`advertising, promotional, distribution, or reach -expansion products that YouTube users are enticed
`to use as a means for enhancing the reach of their videos, and competing for advertising revenues
`and viewership on an “open” platform.
`12.
`Under this open platform business model, users must also give
`Google/YouTubeDefendants the exclusive property rights to each user’stheir personal and financial
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`45 See https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/ .
`28 1392054.1 1736512.1
`-5
`Case No. 5:19-cv-004749-VKD
`SECONDTHIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
`RESTITUTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04749-VKD Document 97 Filed 01/26/22 Page 11 of 141
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`data, the value of which provides Defendants with billions of dollars in annual revenues.
`Google/YouTubeDefendants not only collect, store, analyze, and organize the personal, financial,
`political, and other data for each of the YouTube Platform users, but Defendants also use and sell
`that data to third parties on the open market. The average revenue value to Defendants for the
`property right to the data for each individual Plaintiff (and each individual putative class member’s)
`is estimated to exceed $1 million in revenue per year for each suchper user.
`13.
`Google/YouTubeDefendants also monetizesmonetize the YouTube Platform by
`creating, posting, distributing, and marketing Defendants’ own video content which competes for
`viewership and revenues directly with YouTube creators and viewersusers like Plaintiffs, on a
`“supposed viewpoint -neutral” open internet platform. In so doing, Google/YouTubeDefendants
`10
`have content production and distribution deals with large, mainstream media conglomerates
`11
`including FOX News, PBS, NBC, MLB, the NFL, and HBO (to name but a few), whose content also
`12
`competes with Plaintiffs on the YouTube Platform and are supposedly subject to the same viewpoint
`13
`-neutral, content -based rules that apply equally to all.
`14
`14.
`To effectuate, govern, and enforce access and use by consumers as well as
`15
`Google/YouTubeDefendants and its business partners, all creators and viewers enter into a Terms of
`16
`Service contract with Defendants. In so doingrelation to those agreements, Defendants have
`17
`admitted, clarified and expressly warranted to the public and U.S. Congress that underpursuant to its
`18
`Terms of Service, YouTube is a designated “public forum” that is open to “everyone” subject only
`19
`to “viewpoint-neutral,” content-based filtering rules and restrictions that “apply equally to all” who
`20
`use YouTubeusers. Among other things, Defendants have admitted under oath, that YouTube’s
`21
`Terms of Service and other public representations prohibit them from considering, utilizing, or
`22
`taking into account a user’s personal, gender, sexual orientation, racial, ethnic, religious, political,
`23
`or commercial identity or viewpoint when filtering or regulating content on YouTube. These
`24
`obligations expressly prohibit Defendants or their agents from using the personal identity or
`25
`viewpoint of the creators or viewers as a basis to restrict or interfere with the users’ ability to reach,
`26
`27
`distribute, or market content to the users’ intended audience or viewers on the YouTube Platform.
`28 1392054.1 1736512.1The Terms of Service also prohibitsprohibit Defendants from using the userusers’s personal identity
`
`-6
`Case No. 5:19-cv-004749-VKD
`SECONDTHIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
`RESTITUTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04749-VKD Document 97 Filed 01/26/22 Page 12 of 141
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`or viewpoint to prohibit or interfere with a userusers’s purchase purchases of
`DefendantDefendants’s advertising and/or reach products to promote or distribute otherwise
`compliant content.
`15.
`Using this business model and in direct reliance, Google/YouTube of this business
`model, Defendants solicited the public users to provide, including Plaintiffs, to upload video content
`to the YouTube Platform with video content that now amounts to, and they now control and exercise
`complete dominion over roughly 95% of the public video-based content and communications in the
`world. By controlling and regulating virtually all of the public video content in the United States
`and the rest of the world, Google/YouTubeDefendants operate YouTube as the largest for-profit
`forum dedicated to free speech and expression in the history of the world. Based on itsResulting
`10
`from Defendants’ promises to provide the public and its consumers withthat it provides an open
`11
`internet platform for freedom of expression, subject only to lawful, viewpoint -neutral content
`12
`-based filtering, regulations, and rules that apply equally to all, Defendants have reaped more than
`13
`$50 billion in annual revenues by regulating, distributing, and monetizing the free speech and
`14
`expression of what is now estimated to be 95% of all public video content provided by the
`15
`approximately 2.3 billion people who now use the YouTube Platform.
`16
`16.
`Defendants founded, built, and now operate the YouTube Platform based on a lie that
`17
`pervades every aspect of the platform and render its operation one of the largest and most dangerous
`18
`consumer frauds in history: —namely, that YouTube is an open, viewpoint -neutral platform where
`19
`lawful content -based rules apply equally to all personsusers regardless of personal identity or
`20
`viewpoint. Instead Google/YouTubeDefendants are engaged in a bait and switch designed to purge
`21
`the Platform of content creators and their followers whom Defendants dislike or view as
`22
`unprofitable in the long term. In direct violation of the law and the fundamental promises upon
`23
`which YouTube was founded, built, and operated, Google/YouTube now operates, Defendants filter
`24
`and regulate all aspects of user access on the YouTube Platform based on the personal identity and
`25
`viewpoint of the creator or their intended audience. That is discrimination pure and simple.
`26
`27
`17.
`Furthermore, as part of its campaign to cleanse the and otherthird party content
`28 1392054.1 1736512.1creators from the YouTube Platform, Google/YouTubeDefendants also use discriminatory, identity
`
`-7
`Case No. 5:19-cv-004749-VKD
`SECONDTHIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
`RESTITUTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-04749-VKD Document 97 Filed 01/26/22 Page 13 of 141
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`-based filtering tools, practices, and machines to stigmatize and restrict access to content creators in
`order to crush them economically and destroy their livelihoods. Among other things,
`Google/YouTubeDefendants have entered into lucrative anticompetitive tying arrangements with
`purported independent, third-party fact checkers and content curators to who flag, curate, and
`restrict third -party creator content, and who promote Google/YouTubeDefendants’s own content
`by falsely and capriciously branding third -party users and/or their content as purveyors of “hate
`speech,” “disinformation,” “fake news,” and shocking, offensive, or simply “otherwise
`objectionable.” content. These practices not only violate the express and implied contractual
`obligations and promises that Defendants have made to Plaintiffs and the billions of other YouTube
`users who depend on the platform to communicate and to earn their livelihoods;, but they violate the
`10
`constitutionaltheir Constitutional and legal rights of public YouTube users to express,
`11
`communicate, interact, and market ideas through video content under viewpoint -neutral rules and
`12
`regulations.
`13
`Defendants’ conduct is not only unlawful, butit constitutes an existential threat to the
`18.
`14
`fundamental freedoms onupon which our society is based. Plaintiffs, as well as other independent
`15
`content creators and users, supplied YouTube with the content and viewers that are directly
`16
`responsible for creating YouTube’s global reach, popularity, and financial and political success.
`17
`TheyPlaintiffs uploaded their videos to YouTube in reliance uponon Defendants’ repeated promises
`18
`that YouTube was a forum for freedom of expression, access to which was subject only to lawful,
`19
`viewpoint -based content filtering and rules that apply equally to all users. Consequently,
`20
`Defendants’ denial of Plaintiffs’ access to the YouTube Platform based on Plaintiffs’ sexual
`21
`orientation or gender identity constitutes unlawful systemic discrimination that is unconstitutional,
`22
`unlawful, and repugnan