Case 5:20-cv-04011 Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 1 of 239
`
`BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP
`Peter Obstler (State Bar No. 171623)
` pobstler@bgrfirm.com
`44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1280
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Telephone: (415) 391-7100
`Facsimile: (310 275-5697
`Eric M. George (State Bar No. 166403)
` egeorge@bgrfirm.com
`Debi A. Ramos (State Bar No. 135373)
` dramos@bgrfirm.com
`Keith R. Lorenze (State Bar No. 326894)
` klorenze@bgrfirm.com
`2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone: (310) 274-7100
`Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kimberly Carleste Newman, Lisa
`Cabrera, Catherine Jones and Denotra Nicole Lewis
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`Kimberly Carleste Newman, Lisa Cabrera,
`Catherine Jones, and Denotra Nicole Lewis,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`Google LLC, YouTube LLC, Alphabet Inc,
`and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
`Defendants.
`
` Case No.
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT,
`RESTITUTION AND DAMAGES
`
`Trial Date: None Set
`
`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 No.
`1605366.1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, RESTITUTION AND DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011 Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 2 of 239
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND PREFATORY STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................. 1
`PARTIES ............................................................................................................................... 14
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE ............................................................................................ 17
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS ................................................................................ 17
`A.
`The Governing Agreements ...................................................................................... 18
`1.
`The General Terms Of Use And Contract-Based Promises .......................... 20
`2.
`The License Provisions ................................................................................. 23
`Defendants Are Engaged In Anti-Competitive, Unlawful, Deceptive And
`Unfair Business Practices .......................................................................................... 25
`Defendants’ Tool Kit For Unlawful Conduct ........................................................... 27
`1.
`Artificial Intelligence Algorithm Restrictions ............................................... 27
`2.
`Excluding Channels And Videos From Full Revenue Generation ............... 30
`3.
`Misapplying “Restricted Mode” .................................................................... 31
`4.
`Shadow Banning Channels And Videos ....................................................... 36
`5.
`Delegating Content Review And Regulation To Racists And White
`Supremacists .................................................................................................. 38
`Interfering With Livestream Broadcasts ....................................................... 39
`Excluding Videos From “Trending” And “Up Next” Video
`Recommendations ......................................................................................... 40
`Freezing Channel Analytics Re Subscribers And Viewers ........................... 41
`8.
`Promoting And Profiting From Hate Speech ................................................ 42
`9.
`Interfering With, Obstructing, Ignoring And Delaying Appeals .................. 43
`10.
`Defendants Have Violated And Continue To Violate The Rights Of Plaintiffs
`And The Class ........................................................................................................... 45
`1.
`Kimberly Carleste Newman .......................................................................... 45
`2.
`Lisa Cabrera .................................................................................................. 50
`3.
`Catherine Jones ............................................................................................. 56
`
`6.
`7.
`
`D.
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`
`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
`
`-i-
`Case No.
`1605366.1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, RESTITUTION AND DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011 Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 3 of 239
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Page
`Denotra Nicole Lewis .................................................................................... 56
`4.
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS ...................................................................................................... 60
`V.
`INDIVIDUAL CAUSES OF ACTION ................................................................................. 64
`VI.
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION REQUEST FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT
`SECTION 230(c) IMMUNITY IS INAPPLICABLE TO DISCRIMINATION
`CLAIMS (On Behalf Of Each Plaintiff Individually And The Class) .................................. 64
`A.
`Procedural Background Facts .................................................................................... 64
`B.
`Justiciable Legal Controversies Currently Exist Regarding The Construction
`And Constitutionality Of 47 U.S.C. § 230(c). ........................................................... 71
`1.
`An Actual Controversy Exist As To Whether The Provisions Of
`Section 230(c) Immunize Defendants From Race, Personal Identity,
`or Viewpoint Discrimination In Filtering And Blocking On line
`Content And Access ...................................................................................... 72
`An Actual Controversy Exists As To Whether Section 230(c)
`Immunizes Defendants For Conduct That Violates ...................................... 72
`The Provisions And/or Application Of Any Part Of Section 230(c)
`To Claims Arising Out Of Race, Identity, Or Viewpoint
`Discrimination Is Unconstitutional ............................................................... 72
`The Executive Order Precludes The Government From Arguing Or
`Enforcing Section 230(c) To Claims Based On Intentional Identity Or
`Viewpoint Discrimination. ............................................................................ 73
`Plaintiffs Served Rule 5.1 Notice On The U.S. Attorney General ............................ 74
`C.
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT (On Behalf Of Each
`Plaintiff Individually And The Class) ................................................................................... 75
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF
`GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (On Behalf Of Each Plaintiff Individually
`And The Class) ...................................................................................................................... 77
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL (On Behalf Of Each
`Plaintiff Individually And The Class) ................................................................................... 79
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION IN CONTRACT IN VIOLATION
`OF 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (On Behalf Of Each Plaintiff Individually And The Class) ............... 80
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION
`OF THE UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (On Behalf Of Each Plaintiff Individually
`And The Class) ...................................................................................................................... 83
`
`4.
`
`-ii-
`Case No.
`1605366.1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, RESTITUTION AND DAMAGES
`
`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 5:20-cv-04011 Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 4 of 239
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FALSE ADVERTISING IN VIOLATION OF
`THE LANHAM ACT, U.S.C. § 1125, et seq. (On Behalf Of Each Plaintiff
`Individually And The Class) ................................................................................................. 85
`EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL, DECEPTIVE, AND UNFAIR
`BUSINESS PRACTICES CAL. BUS. & PROFS. CODE §17200, et seq. (On
`Behalf Of Each Plaintiff Individually And The Class) ......................................................... 87
`NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
`ARTICLE I, SECTION 2 (On Behalf Of Each Plaintiff Individually And The Class) ........ 88
`TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST
`AMENDMENT, UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 1 (On
`Behalf Of Each Plaintiff Individually And The Class) ......................................................... 93
`A.
`Procedural Background ............................................................................................. 93
`B.
`Permissive Endorsement Allegations Of State Action .............................................. 96
`C.
`State Action Allegations Under The Public Function Test ....................................... 98
`D.
`Defendants’ Conduct Violates The First Amendment .............................................. 99
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF ...................................................................................................... 101
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND .................................................................................................... 103
`
`VII.
`VIII.
`
`-iii-
`Case No.
`1605366.1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, RESTITUTION AND DAMAGES
`
`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 5:20-cv-04011 Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 5 of 239
`
`Plaintiffs, Kimberly Carleste Newman, Lisa Cabrera, Catherine Jones, and Denotra Nicole
`Lewis, bring this lawsuit (the “Lawsuit”), individually and on behalf of a putative class of similarly
`situated persons, against Defendant YouTube LLC (“YouTube”), and its parent companies,
`Google LLC (“Google”) and Alphabet Inc. (collectively referred to as “Google/YouTube” or
`“Defendants,” unless otherwise specified).
`Substantial overlaps exists between the claims, allegations, putative classes and issues in
`this Lawsuit with case pending before this Court captioned Divino Group, LLC et al., v. Google,
`LLC, et al, Case No. 5:19-cv-004749 – VKD (N.D. Cal.) (“Divino”). After reviewing Civil L.R. 3-
`12 governing related cases, it is unclear whether this Lawsuit technically meets the specific criteria
`and elements required for relation under Local Rule 3-12. Specifically, this Lawsuit does not
`involve all of “the same parties,” or the identical “property” owned by the same parties in Divino. It
`is also unclear whether the “transactions” are the same within the meaning of Local Rule 3-12 or
`whether the “events” consist of the identical unlawful conduct of restricting of access to the
`YouTube platform based on the profiling and discriminatory use of a person’s personal identity or
`viewpoint in Divino that may be different from the racial identity profiling and discrimination
`against Plaintiffs and the members of the Class in this Lawsuit. Consequently, while Plaintiffs do
`not believe that all of the requirements for designating the Lawsuit “related” come within the
`definition of Local Rule 3-12, Plaintiffs are not opposed to having this Lawsuit related to, or
`otherwise coordinated with, the pending proceedings in Divino.
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND PREFATORY STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`1.
`Plaintiffs are African American content creators, viewers, and consumers who bring
`this Lawsuit to redress overt, intentional, and systematic racial discrimination perpetrated by
`Google/YouTube to deny them and other members of a protected racial classification under the law
`equal access to YouTube, the most “ubiquitous” provider of public video content and internet
`access services in the history of the world.
`2.
`Defendants are members of the largest business enterprise, private or public, in the
`world. Through this enterprise, Defendants exercise complete, absolute, and “unfettered” control
`over access to approximately 95% of all video content that is available to the public. This includes
`
`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
`
`-1-
`Case No.
`1605366.1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, RESTITUTION AND DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011 Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 6 of 239
`
`absolute control over any and all posting, viewing, engagement, advertising, personal data, and
`revenue monetization rights of the 2.3 billion consumers who access and use YouTube.
`3.
`Defendants are also the largest creators, promoters, and sponsors of video content on
`YouTube. Thus, in addition to hosting and regulating video content and services on YouTube,
`Defendants compete directly with Plaintiffs and their content for the same access, audiences,
`viewership, advertising, marketing, and revenue based services on YouTube.
`4.
`In exercising these unprecedented powers, Defendants contract with Plaintiffs and
`all persons similarly situated to provide equal access to YouTube and all of its related services,
`subject only to viewpoint neutral content rules and criteria that apply equally to all.
`5.
`In reality, however, Defendants’ access restrictions and denials imposed on
`Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated are not the result of an identity and viewpoint blind
`review and application of the rules to actual video material. Instead, Defendants have an
`irreconcilable commercial conflict of interest: on the one hand, Defendants act as content creators
`or sponsors of video content, competing directly with Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated
`for the same services, audiences, advertisers, and revenue streams on the YouTube platform; on the
`other hand, Defendants act as absolute regulators and monetizers of all YouTube content and
`services, and exercise unfettered authority to determine viewer and service access by enforcing
`their Community Guidelines and Terms of Service (the “TOS”) against their competitors, based on
`the identity or viewpoint of Plaintiffs and all other persons similarly situated.
`6.
`Under the pretext of honest content and service regulation, Defendants rig the game,
`by using their power to restrict and block Plaintiffs and other similarly situated competitors, based
`on racial identity or viewpoint discrimination for profit. Defendants also abuse their power by not
`subjecting their own videos to the same Community Guidelines and TOS that they apply to all
`other YouTube users. As a result, Defendants are not subject to filtering or blocking restrictions,
`even where Defendants’ videos contain material that violates their own rules.
`7.
`Among the many abuses that Defendants have perpetrated against Plaintiffs and all
`other persons similarly situated, are Defendants’ practices of allowing racist hate speech to go
`unregulated on Plaintiffs’ channels, resulting in lost subscribers and viewership, and the
`
`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
`
`-2-
`Case No.
`1605366.1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, RESTITUTION AND DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011 Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 7 of 239
`
`surreptitious “bugging” of Plaintiffs’ videos by the insertion, attachment, appending, or embedding
`of metadata and other signals that allow Defendants’ filtering tools to target Plaintiffs and all other
`persons similarly situated, based on race, identity and/or the viewpoint of the creator, her channel
`subscribers, and viewers.
`8.
`This intentional and systematic racial discrimination violates Defendants’ legal
`obligations under the contract(s), and is unlawful under federal and state antidiscrimination laws,
`false advertising, unlawful business practices, and free speech laws. It is unlawful whether it is
`done for profit, or out of ideological animus.
`9.
`Interfering with the contractual and legal rights of Plaintiffs and all persons similarly
`situated to access and use YouTube based in any way, part, or degree on their race, identity or
`viewpoint, violates YouTube’s TOS and is unlawful under the strict prohibitions against racial
`discrimination in contract and business practices enshrined in federal and California law. That is
`racism, overt intentional and systematic.
`10.
`Defendants knowingly, intentionally, and systematically employ artificial
`intelligence (“A.I.”), algorithms, computer and machine based filtering and review tools to “target”
`Plaintiffs and all other persons similarly situated, by using information about their racial, identity
`and viewpoint to restrict access and drive them off YouTube.
`11.
`Under the pretext of finding that videos violate some vague, ambiguous, and non-
`specific video content rule, Defendants use computer driven racial, identity and viewpoint profiling
`and filtering tools to restrict, censor, and denigrate Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated on
`YouTube, wholly or in part, because they are African American, black, members of a protected
`racial classification under the law, or identify as such, or with a related viewpoint.
`12.
`Since at least 2017, Defendants’ filtering and review tools and procedures are
`embedded with computer code or other machine based “triggers” that profile the personal racial
`identity or viewpoint of the user. Defendants admit that their filtering tools use information about
`the identity of the YouTube creators, subscribers and viewers to “target” members of protected
`racial classifications under the law and impose access restrictions on them that are not racially,
`identity or viewpoint neutral; nor are they based on, or supported by actual material in the videos;
`
`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
`
`-3-
`Case No.
`1605366.1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, RESTITUTION AND DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011 Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 8 of 239
`
`and Defendants treat such videos as if they violate YouTube’s content based Community
`Guidelines and TOS, by denying full YouTube platform access and related services.
`13.
`On March 19, 2017, Defendants publicly admitted that they improperly censored
`videos using their “Restricted Mode” filtering that were posted or produced by members of the
`LGBTQ+ Community, based upon the identity and orientation of the speaker, rather than upon the
`content of the video. Defendants also promised to remove all restricted filtering on videos posted
`or produced by LGBTQ+ members and groups, and changed their filtering algorithm, and manual
`review policies and practices to address the risk that videos posted by LGBTQ+ vloggers were
`being censored because of the identity or viewpoint of the speaker.
`14.
`On April 27, 2017, Johanna Wright, Vice President of Product Management for
`Google/YouTube, took to the airwaves and news media to promise the global “YouTube
`Community,” that Defendants would ensure that “Restricted Mode” would not “filter out content
`belonging to individuals or groups based on certain attributes like gender, gender identity, political
`viewpoints, race, religion or sexual orientation.” While Ms. Wright conceded that “Restricted
`Mode will never be perfect, [Google/YouTube] hope to build on [their] progress so far to continue
`making [their] systems more accurate and the overall “Restricted Mode” experience better over
`time.”
`
`On September 14, 2017, Defendants invited independent YouTubers and content
`15.
`creators to address concerns that the platform’s video review algorithm and practices discriminated
`against certain minority groups, including LGBTQ+, African American, and other users of color or
`vulnerable minorities. At the meeting, Defendants admitted that their content filtering and review
`tools were “targeting” African American, LGBTQ+, and other “minority” users. They further
`admitted that this resulted in the application of erroneous or unwarranted blocking restrictions and
`access denials for users that were based, at least in part, on the user’s racial or sexual identity or
`viewpoints, rather than a content violation of YouTube’s rules or Terms of Service.
`16.
`Defendants also represented that they were working on a “fix,” and that neither user
`identity nor viewpoint has any role in the application of YouTube’s content based access rules and
`
`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
`
`-4-
`Case No.
`1605366.1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, RESTITUTION AND DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011 Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 9 of 239
`
`restrictions or should otherwise interfere with a user’s right to access the myriad of services that
`Defendants offer to users.1
`17.
`But things have only gotten worse with respect to Defendants’ racial profiling and
`“targeting” of African American and members of other protected racial classifications under the
`law who use YouTube.
`18.
`In January 2018, Defendants got caught red handed. During a recorded call between
`a user and a supervisor, who Defendants now identify as the “Floor Manager” for their customer
`service advertising services center in Bangalore, India, Defendants represented to the user that its
`“holiday special” video was not eligible for advertising services because the filtering tools had
`identified the user as being involved with the “gay thing.” Under what the manager expressly
`stated was “company policy,” the filtering algorithm determined that the video contained
`“shocking” or “sexually explicit” content, not because of any actual material in the video, but
`because the “company” considered video content created by a “gay” user or content that discussed
`the “gay thing” as ineligible for advertising or promotion. Defendants considered content created
`or viewed by “gay” persons to be “shocking” or “sexually explicit.”
`19.
`This pattern and practice or “policy” of denying users equal access to YouTube
`based on their racial, sexual, or other individual identities or viewpoints occurred to the same user
`after the January 2018 call with Defendants, on at least five other occasions. The pattern and
`practice has become so pervasive that many prominent and quality content creators have lost more
`than 90% of their viewers, advertisers, revenue, and other access rights in the last 24 months solely
`
`1 One of the persons who attended the meeting is Stephanie Frosch, a prominent and popular
`LGBTQ+ content creator on YouTube. Ms. Frosch is a named plaintiff in another class action
`lawsuit pending in this District, captioned Divino Group, et al. v. Google LLC, et al., Case No.
`5:19-cv-004749-VKD (N.D. Cal.). In that case, Ms. Frosch testified under oath the she and the
`other attendees were required to execute multiple non-disclosure agreements (the “NDAs”) before
`and at the event. The NDAs prevented her, and any anyone else who attended the meeting, from
`disclosing any information about the meeting. On March 23, 2020, after Plaintiffs threatened to
`move to set aside the NDAs as void and unenforceable, Defendants agreed to release her from her
`obligations under the NDAs. See Declaration of Stephanie Frosch Submitted in Support of
`Plaintiffs’ Application to File a Sur Reply to Address New Authority. A true and correct copy of
`the Declaration of Stephanie Frosch (Dkt. #40) is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`-5-
`Case No.
`1605366.1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, RESTITUTION AND DAMAGES
`
`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 5:20-cv-04011 Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 10 of 239
`
`because they are identified as African American, LGBTQ+ or other protected racial classifications
`under the law.
`The Plaintiffs in this Lawsuit also face the same sort of overt, intentional, and
`20.
`systemic identity and viewpoint discrimination, with one important difference: Defendants do not
`discriminate against Plaintiffs only because of sex based identity or viewpoint profiling, but
`primarily because they identify as African American, or with other protected racial classifications
`under the law.
`21.
`This is unlawful race discrimination. Unlike any other form of prohibited
`discrimination, it has been outlawed in the United States since 1865, when Congress enacted
`section 1981 and other civil rights laws intended to wipe out, prohibit, and make any and all racial
`discrimination in contracts and business practices unlawful.
`22.
`Defendants know and admit that they discriminate, including admissions that since
`at least 2017, they use content based filtering and access review tools, systems, and practices that
`“target” African Americans and other members of protected racial classifications under the law.
`23.
`Nonetheless, Defendants have failed to “fix” the discriminatory defects in their
`content and access review systems and stop the “targeting” as promised. Defendants continue to
`knowingly, intentionally, and systematically block, demonetize, and deny Plaintiffs and other
`persons similarly situated, their contractual and other legal rights to access YouTube based on the
`color of their skin or other protected racial traits, rather than the material in their videos.
`24.
`Defendants also abuse their dual roles as content reviewers and content creators on
`YouTube. Specifically, under the pretext of unfettered “discretion” to serve as sole “censors” of
`content on the YouTube platform, Defendants use racial profiling to restrict the reach and access of
`Plaintiffs and other third party users who compete directly with Defendants and their sponsored
`video content for click per minute (“CPM”), advertising, and other revenue stream and services on
`YouTube.
`Instead of “fixing” the digital racism that pervades the filtering, restricting, and
`25.
`blocking of user content and access on YouTube, Defendants have decided to double down and
`continue their racist and identity based practices because they are profitable. By utilizing their
`
`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
`
`-6-
`Case No.
`1605366.1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, RESTITUTION AND DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011 Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 11 of 239
`
`unilateral control over 95% of the world’s public video content, Defendants unlawfully
`misappropriate viewers, CPM, advertising, and other revenues that belong to, or would otherwise
`be available to, Plaintiffs and other third party users, but for the discriminatory restrictions that
`unlawfully restrict and block Plaintiffs’ content and access to YouTube services.
`26.
`This is race discrimination. It is knowing and intentional. Defendants knowingly
`used and continue to use discriminatory content filtering review tools and procedures that “target”
`Plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated, for access restrictions because they are African
`American, persons of color, or are identified by Defendants as having an ethnicity or other personal
`immutable traits and/or viewpoints, not because the actual video content or material violates
`YouTube’s purportedly neutral content rules.
`27.
`Defendants’ racist profiling and practices are also systematic. By using A.I.,
`algorithms and other computerized machine based filtering tools (in lieu of having humans perform
`the “ubiquitous” task of reviewing and deciding whether the material or content in billions of hours
`of videos uploaded daily to YouTube) to sanction Plaintiffs, Defendants engage in a knowing and
`intentional practice that unlawfully discriminates against users based on race or other protected
`racial classifications under the law, or viewpoints.
`28.
`Defendants’ conduct is knowing, intentional, and systematic, regardless of whether
`Defendants are motivated by ideological animus towards black and members of other protected
`racial classifications under the law, or they merely use racial and identity profiling to restrict access
`for profit, and/or to save costs, resources, labor, and time necessary to lawfully review actual video
`content and determine, in a viewpoint neutral manner, whether a rule violation has occurred that
`triggers a content based access restriction or sanction on YouTube. In short, Defendants’ use of
`racism for profit is every bit unlawful as ideological racism, since, in either case, it discriminates
`against Plaintiffs because they are African Americans or members of other protected racial
`classifications under the law.
`29.
`Defendants do not disagree. Susan Wojcicki, YouTube’s CEO, has taken to the
`airwaves over the last three years to repeatedly and unequivocally deny that Defendants
`discriminate against anyone when it comes to content or access restrictions to YouTube, while
`
`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
`
`-7-
`Case No.
`1605366.1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, RESTITUTION AND DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011 Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 12 of 239
`
`insisting that all decisions, wrong or right, are the product of good faith, viewpoint neutral, and
`identity blind content reviews and decisions.
`30.
`On or about June 14, 2020, Wojcicki publicly announced that in conjunction with
`Alphabet, Defendant YouTube was starting a $100 million fund "dedicated to amplifying and
`developing the voices of Black creators and artists and their stories." In a blog post Thursday,
`Wojcicki said, "At YouTube, we believe Black lives matter and we all need to do more to
`dismantle systemic racism.” See https://www.marketwatch.com/story/youtube-is-starting-a-100-
`million-fund-for-black-creators-artists-2020-06-11.
`31.
`Given Defendants’ stated concerns regarding systemic racism, Defendants have
`some serious explaining to do when it comes to the Plaintiffs and the other persons similarly
`situated using YouTube. Plaintiffs would prefer that Defendants spend their money to stop the
`racist practices that pervade the YouTube platform, including:
`Abusing Artificial Intelligence Programs, Algorithms and Other
`a.
`Filtering Tools to digitally profile, redline, and target Plaintiffs and all persons similarly situated
`on the YouTube platform, for access restrictions, blocking, demonetization, suspensions and
`removals from the platform based on the racial identity or viewpoint of the video creator, her
`subscribers, and/or the viewers of her videos by inserting or appending to individual videos race,
`identity or viewpoint based metadata, thereby forcing Plaintiffs to self-censor and refrain from
`posting videos regarding issues and current events which are important to the African American
`community, such as requiring Plaintiffs to avoid or hide references to abbreviations like “BLM,”
`“KKK;” terms such as “Black,” “White,” “Racism,” “Boogaloo,” “White Supremacy,” “Racial
`Profiling,” “Police Shootings,” “Police Brutality,” “Black Lives Matter;” names of individuals such
`as those killed by law enforcement, “Bill Cosby,” “Louis Farrakhan;” names of organizations such
`as “Ku Klux Klan,” “Nazi,” “Neo-Nazi,” “Aryan Brotherhood,” and/or other euphemisms that are
`known and particular to the African American community, despite the fact that the videos involved
`do not contain any hate speech, profanity, or nudity, and at most, contain very short references or
`quotations from recognized news sources, which are properly attributed.
`
`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
`
`-8-
`Case No.
`1605366.1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, RESTITUTION AND DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011 Document 1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 13 of 239
`
`Preventing Full Revenue Generation for videos of Plaintiffs and all
`b.
`persons similarly situated who are not afforded full monetization, Channel Membership and
`Livestream donations for videos that are otherwise eligible under Defendants’ rules, but have been
`demonetized or limited in monetization because of Defendants’ addition of metadata and use of
`algorithms and filtering tools that profile creators, subscribers and viewers based on their race or
`viewpoint, rather than on the actual content of the video.
`Misapplying “Restricted Mode” to the videos of Plaintiffs and all persons
`c.
`similarly situated, which address or discuss issues of importance to their communities, merely
`because the videos have titles or tags which include “abbreviations like “BLM,” “KKK;” terms
`such as “Black,” “White,” “Racism,” “Boogaloo,” “White Supremacy,” “Racial Profiling,” “Police
`Shootings,” “Police Brutality,” “Black Lives Matter;” names of individuals such as those killed by
`law enforcement, “Bill Cosby,” “Louis Farrakhan;” names of organizations such as “Ku Klux
`Klan,” “Nazi,” “Neo-Nazi,” “Aryan Brotherhood,” and/or other euphemi