throbber
Case 5:20-cv-04011-LHK Document 68 Filed 06/25/21 Page 1 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`KIMBERLY CARLESTE NEWMAN, et
`al.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 20-CV-04011-LHK
`
`ORDER GRANTING WITH LEAVE TO
`AMEND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
`DISMISS; DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Kimberly Carleste Newman, Lisa Cabrera, Catherine Jones, Denotra Nicole
`
`Lewis, Andrew Hepkins, Harvey Stubbs, Khalif Muhammad, Keu Reyes, and Osiris Ley
`
`(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring the instant case against Defendants Google LLC and YouTube,
`
`LLC (collectively, “Defendants”),1 alleging claims for equitable conversion, replevin, equitable
`
`accounting of revenue, breach of contract, implied breach of covenant of good faith and fair
`
`dealing, promissory estoppel, violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act; violation of 42 U.S.C. §
`
`1981, unlawful, deceptive, and unfair business practices in violation of Business & Professions
`
`Code § 17200 (“UCL”), false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125,
`
`
`1 On November 2, 2020, the parties voluntarily dismissed Defendant Alphabet Inc. ECF No. 28.
`1
`
`Case No. 20-CV-04011-LHK
`ORDER GRANTING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011-LHK Document 68 Filed 06/25/21 Page 2 of 28
`
`
`
`violation of Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution, and violation of the First
`
`Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Revised Second Amended Class Action
`
`Complaint, ECF No. 27 (“SAC”). Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment that Section 230 of
`
`the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) either does not immunize Defendants’ alleged
`
`misconduct or is unconstitutional. Id. Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss
`
`Plaintiffs’ SAC in its entirety, ECF No. 29 (“Mot.”), and Plaintiffs’ motion to strike, or in the
`
`alternative to convert Defendants’ motion to dismiss into a Rule 56 motion. ECF No. 39
`
`(“MTS”). Having considered the parties’ submissions, the relevant law, and the record in this
`
`case, the Court GRANTS with leave to amend Defendants’ motion to dismiss and DENIES
`
`Plaintiffs’ motion to strike.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. Factual Background
`
`1. The Parties
`
`YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”), a subsidiary of Google LLC (“Google”), is the largest and
`
`most popular online video hosting platform with approximately 2.3 billion users worldwide. SAC
`
`at ¶ 27, 75. YouTube’s principle place of business is in Mountain View, California. Id.
`
`Plaintiffs are each YouTube creators and operators of various YouTube channels. Id. at ¶¶
`
`18–26. Each Plaintiff is African American or of Mexican or Puerto Rican descent. Id. Each
`
`Plaintiff operates at least one channel on YouTube. Id. A YouTube channel allows content
`
`creators, such as Plaintiffs, to upload videos into a centralized location that other users can follow
`
`and be alerted when new videos are posted. Some Plaintiffs have “monetized” their videos by
`
`participating in YouTube’s advertising program, whereby content creators are compensated for
`
`advertisements that run on their videos. Id.
`
`2. YouTube’s Terms of Service
`
`Content creators, including Plaintiffs, upload videos to YouTube free of charge. YouTube
`
`users may then view, share, and comment on those videos. Id. at ¶ 519. Uploading a video to
`
`Case No. 20-CV-04011-LHK
`ORDER GRANTING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`2
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011-LHK Document 68 Filed 06/25/21 Page 3 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`YouTube or creating a YouTube channel requires that a user agree to YouTube’s Terms of Service
`
`(“TOS”), which in turn incorporate YouTube’s Community Guidelines. Id. at ¶ 7 n.2. Among
`
`other provisions, YouTube’s TOS state that YouTube has the right to remove content from its site
`
`“including, but not limited to, pornography, obscenity, or [content that is] excessive length.” Id. at
`
`¶ 105. Videos may also violate YouTube’s TOS and be removed if those videos contain “hate
`
`speech, obscene, misogynistic, violent, threatening, or disparaging content.” Id. at ¶ 164.
`
`3. YouTube’s Restricted Mode
`
`YouTube offers a setting called Restricted Mode. Restricted Mode is an opt-in setting on
`
`the service that allows users or institutions to screen out content that has been flagged as age-
`
`restricted or “potentially adult.” SAC at ¶¶ 135–137. This setting allows system administrators at
`
`schools and other institutions to restrict potentially adult content from being accessed by users,
`
`including children. Id. Although Restricted Mode primarily affects users who turn on Restricted
`
`Mode themselves, Plaintiffs allege that users without YouTube accounts are occasionally blocked
`
`by Restricted Mode from viewing potentially adult content when those users visit YouTube. Id.
`
`Videos can be tagged for exclusion in Restricted Mode in one of two ways. First,
`
`YouTube algorithms look for particular “signals,” such as “the video’s metadata, title, and tag
`
`words associated with the video.” Id. at ¶ 139. Based on those signals, YouTube’s algorithms
`
`will automatically tag a video to be excluded in Restricted Mode. Id. Second, videos can be
`
`flagged by YouTube users as potentially inappropriate. Flagged videos are then reviewed by a
`
`team of human reviewers and excluded in Restricted Mode if a video includes content that is age-
`
`restricted or potentially adult. Id.
`
`Plaintiffs allege that there are multiple criteria that can lead to YouTube deeming a video
`
`to be inappropriate, including videos that contain the following content:
`
`(1) talking about drug use or abuse, or drinking alcohol in videos; (2)
`overly detailed conversations about or depictions of sex or sexual
`activity; (3) graphic descriptions of violence, violent acts, natural
`disasters and tragedies, or even violence in the news; (4) videos that
`cover specific details about events related to terrorism, war, crime,
`and political conflicts that resulted in death or serious injury, even if
`
`Case No. 20-CV-04011-LHK
`ORDER GRANTING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`3
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011-LHK Document 68 Filed 06/25/21 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`Id. at ¶ 139.
`
`no graphic imagery is shown; (5) inappropriate language, including
`profanity; and (6) video content that is gratuitously incendiary,
`inflammatory, or demeaning towards an individual or group.
`
`Videos that are blocked in Restricted Mode remain viewable to users who do not have
`
`Restricted Mode activated, as long as those videos otherwise meet YouTube’s TOS. A user whose
`
`video has been blocked in Restricted Mode may appeal to YouTube if that user believes that the
`
`video was incorrectly flagged for exclusion in Restricted Mode. Id. at ¶ 146.
`
`4. Advertising Policies on YouTube
`
`YouTube content creators whose channels meet certain criteria are allowed to “monetize”
`
`their videos by allowing YouTube to run advertisements before and during videos. This allows
`
`content creators to earn revenue from their qualifying videos. See, e.g., id. at ¶ 18–26, 65.
`
`YouTube calls this the YouTube Partner Program. Id. at ¶ 7 n.2. Before content creators can run
`
`advertisements on their videos, content creators must agree to supplemental terms of service,
`
`including the Partner Program Terms of Service and the Google AdSense Terms of Service. Id.
`
`These terms are intended to ensure that YouTube advertisements do not appear on videos with
`
`objectionable content, and YouTube uses automated software to identify content that is
`
`inappropriate for advertising. Id. at ¶ 65. If a content creator believes that their video has been
`
`incorrectly flagged as inappropriate, the content creator may appeal that decision for manual
`
`review. Id. at ¶ 176.
`
`5. Plaintiffs’ Allegations of YouTube’s Misconduct
`
`Plaintiffs allege that despite Defendants’ statements that YouTube’s moderation policies
`
`are race-neutral, Defendants have targeted Plaintiffs because of Plaintiffs’ race and viewpoints.
`
`Id. at ¶ 36. Specifically, Defendants “profile, use, and consider Plaintiffs’ race, personal identity,
`
`or viewpoints, in order to interfere with, restrict, or block video uploading, viewing, promotion,
`
`advertising, engagement, and/or monetization services because Plaintiffs are African American
`
`and/or possess personal characteristics or viewpoints that Defendants dislike.” Id.
`
`Defendants allegedly discriminate against Plaintiffs in several ways. First, Defendants’
`
`Case No. 20-CV-04011-LHK
`ORDER GRANTING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`4
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011-LHK Document 68 Filed 06/25/21 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`filtering and reviewing tools profile the racial identity of Plaintiffs and impose restrictions on
`
`Plaintiffs’ videos by blocking access to those videos in Restricted Mode. Id. at ¶ 47–48.
`
`Plaintiffs’ videos allegedly do not contain content that meets YouTube’s qualification for
`
`inappropriate or potentially adult content. Id. at ¶¶ 65, 143. Rather, Plaintiffs’ videos are
`
`allegedly included in Restricted Mode because of Plaintiffs’ racial identity or viewpoint. Id.
`
`Second, Defendants “demonetize” Plaintiffs’ videos by preventing advertisements from
`
`running on those videos. Id. at ¶ 65. Defendants contractually reserve the right to remove
`
`advertising from users’ videos, but Plaintiffs allege that Defendants remove advertising from
`
`Plaintiffs’ videos on account of Plaintiffs’ race or viewpoint, rather than inappropriate content. Id.
`
`By demonetizing Plaintiffs’ videos, Defendants allegedly deprive Plaintiffs of advertising revenue
`
`that Plaintiffs would otherwise receive. Id. at ¶ 64.
`
`Third, Defendants allegedly engage in several other practices that discriminate against
`
`Plaintiffs on the basis of their race and viewpoints. These practices include “shadow banning”
`
`videos and channels (i.e. removing videos or channels from search results); excluding Plaintiffs’
`
`videos from the “Up Next” or “Trending” feature on YouTube; interfering with Plaintiffs’
`
`livestream broadcasts by throttling, pixelating, or otherwise disrupting the broadcast; “ad
`
`bombing” Plaintiffs’ videos by interrupting Plaintiffs’ videos with constant streaming or banner
`
`ads; recommending hostile, irrelevant, or extraneous videos in the “Up Next” feature on Plaintiffs’
`
`videos; permitting hate speech on Plaintiffs’ videos; and ignoring and obstructing Plaintiffs’
`
`internal appeals of YouTube’s decisions to suspend or restrict Plaintiffs’ channels and videos. Id.
`
`at ¶ 65. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ conduct “creates censorship, restraint of speech, and
`
`discrimination based on the race, identity, and/or viewpoint of Plaintiffs and all other persons
`
`similarly situated.” Id. at ¶ 121.
`
`Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are motivated to act in an anticompetitive
`
`manner towards Plaintiffs because Defendants produce their own content and distribute it on
`
`YouTube. Id. at ¶ 40. Thus, Plaintiffs allege, Defendants act in ways that harm Plaintiffs’ videos
`
`Case No. 20-CV-04011-LHK
`ORDER GRANTING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`5
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011-LHK Document 68 Filed 06/25/21 Page 6 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`and favor Defendants’ own content. Id. at ¶ 42. These actions include the conduct described
`
`above, such as tagging videos for Restricted Mode, restricting monetization, shadow banning
`
`videos and channels, throttling livestream videos, and excluding Plaintiffs’ videos from the “Up
`
`Next” feature on YouTube. Id. at ¶ 65. These actions were taken, Plaintiffs allege, in order to
`
`favor Defendants’ own content and push users to view Defendants’ content. Id. at ¶ 42–43.
`
`B. Procedural History
`
`On June 16, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the instant case. ECF No. 1. On August
`
`17, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 21.
`
`On August 26, 2020, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to allow Plaintiffs to file a
`
`Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 25.
`
`On September 21, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 26. The
`
`same day, Plaintiffs filed a Revised Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). ECF No. 27.
`
`Plaintiffs’ SAC alleges the following causes of action: (1) request for a declaratory judgment
`
`regarding the scope and constitutionality of Section 230 of the CDA; (2) equitable claim for an
`
`accounting of debts; (3) conversion; (4) replevin; (5) breach of contract; (6) breach of implied
`
`covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (7) promissory estoppel; (8) discrimination in contract in
`
`violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (9) discrimination in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act; (10)
`
`false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125; (11) unlawful, deceptive, and
`
`unfair business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.
`
`(“UCL”); (12) violation of Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution; and (13) violation of
`
`the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Id. at ¶¶ 366–583.
`
`Plaintiffs also seek to certify a “a putative class of similarly situated persons who use or
`
`have used YouTube or any of the services that Defendants offer in connection with YouTube and
`
`who come within the definition or classification of a protected class of persons under 42 U.S.C.
`
`1981.” Id. at ¶ 346.
`
`On November 2, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 29 (“Mot.”). On
`
`Case No. 20-CV-04011-LHK
`ORDER GRANTING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`6
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011-LHK Document 68 Filed 06/25/21 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`
`January 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 38.
`
`On January 20, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike. ECF No. 39 (“MTS”).
`
`On January 25, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a corrected opposition to Defendants’ motion to
`
`dismiss. ECF No. 42. The same day, Plaintiffs filed a further revised and corrected opposition to
`
`Defendants’ motion to dismiss. ECF No. 43 (“Opp.”).
`
`On February 3, 2021, the United States filed a motion to set a time for intervention. ECF
`
`No. 45. On February 9, 2021, the Court granted the United States’ motion. ECF No. 49.
`
`On February 10, 2021, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to strike. ECF
`
`No. 50. On February 24, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a reply to the motion to strike. ECF No. 51.
`
`On February 24, 2021, Defendants’ filed a reply to the motion to dismiss. ECF No. 52
`
`(“reply”).
`
`On March 22, 2021, the United States filed a notice of intervention and a brief regarding
`
`the constitutionality of Section 230 of the CDA. ECF Nos. 53, 54. On March 29, 2021, Plaintiffs
`
`filed a response to the United States’ brief. ECF No. 55.
`
`On April 7, 2021, Defendants filed an administrative motion for leave to file a response to
`
`Plaintiffs’ March 29, 2021 response. ECF No. 56. Specifically, Defendants seek to address
`
`several issues raised by Plaintiffs regarding the scope and constitutionality of Section 230 of the
`
`CDA. Id. at 2. On April 11, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendants’ administrative
`
`motion. ECF No. 57. The Court does not reach the scope or constitutionality of Section 230, and
`
`therefore DENIES Defendants’ administrative motion as moot.
`
`On May 19, 2021, the United States filed a notice regarding a recent executive order. ECF
`
`No. 62.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 12(b)(6)
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss an
`
`action for failure to allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell
`
`Case No. 20-CV-04011-LHK
`ORDER GRANTING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`7
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011-LHK Document 68 Filed 06/25/21 Page 8 of 28
`
`
`
`Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
`
`plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
`
`defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a
`
`‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
`
`unlawfully.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal citation omitted).
`
`For purposes of ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court “accept[s] factual allegations
`
`in the complaint as true and construe[s] the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
`
`party.” Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2008).
`
`However, a court need not accept as true allegations contradicted by judicially noticeable
`
`facts. Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428, 435 (9th Cir. 2000). Mere “conclusory allegations
`
`of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.” Adams v.
`
`Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004).
`
`B. Leave to Amend
`
`Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend “shall be freely
`
`granted when justice so requires,” bearing in mind “the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate
`
`decision on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
`
`1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
`
`Generally, leave to amend shall be denied only if allowing amendment would unduly prejudice the
`
`opposing party, cause undue delay, or be futile, or if the moving party has acted in bad
`
`faith. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008). Whether to
`
`grant leave to amend a pleading under Rule 15(a) is a procedural matter governed by the law of
`
`the regional circuit. See Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ SAC should be dismissed for
`
`the following reasons: (1) Plaintiffs’ SAC fails to adequately plead any cause of action; (2)
`
`Case No. 20-CV-04011-LHK
`ORDER GRANTING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`8
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011-LHK Document 68 Filed 06/25/21 Page 9 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`Plaintiffs’ SAC fails to include a short and plain statement of claims in violation of Federal Rule
`
`of Civil Procedure 8; and (3) Section 230 of the CDA bars Plaintiffs’ causes of action because
`
`Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendants liable for editorial decisions. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’
`
`SAC should be dismissed for failure to state any federal claim, and therefore the Court does not
`
`reach Defendants’ further arguments for dismissal. The Court first addresses Plaintiffs’ federal
`
`causes of action, and then turns to Plaintiffs’ state law causes of action.
`
`A. Claim for Racial Discrimination in Contract in Violation of Section 1981
`
`First, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have engaged in racial discrimination in the making
`
`and enforcement of contracts in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. SAC at ¶¶ 467–476. Defendants
`
`argue that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Section 1981 and therefore Plaintiffs’ claim
`
`should be dismissed.
`
`Section 1981 states that all persons within the United States “shall have the same right . . .
`
`to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). This
`
`right includes “the right to the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the
`
`contractual relationship . . .” Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d 1116, 1122 (9th Cir.
`
`2008). To state a claim under Section 1981, a plaintiff must establish three elements: “(1) the
`
`plaintiff is a member of a racial minority; (2) an intent to discriminate on the basis of race by the
`
`defendant; and (3) the discrimination concerns one or more of the activities enumerated in the
`
`statute.” Keum v. Virgin America Inc., 781 F. Supp. 2d 944, 954 (N.D. Cal. 2011); see also Lenk
`
`v. Sacks, Ricketts, & Case LLP, 2020 WL 2793480, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2020) (same). The
`
`Ninth Circuit has made clear that Plaintiffs must “allege facts that would support an inference that
`
`defendants intentionally and purposefully discriminated against them.” Imagineering, Inc. v.
`
`Kiewit Pac. Co., 976 F.2d 1303, 1313 (9th Cir. 1992), abrogated on other grounds by Newcal
`
`Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Sol., 513 F.3d 1038, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008). Importantly, a plaintiff must
`
`“plead and then prove that its injury would not have occurred ‘but for’ the defendant’s unlawful
`
`conduct.” Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of African Am.-Owned Media, 140 S. Ct. 1009, 1013
`
`Case No. 20-CV-04011-LHK
`ORDER GRANTING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`9
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011-LHK Document 68 Filed 06/25/21 Page 10 of 28
`
`
`
`(2020).
`
`In the instant case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have restricted and demonetized
`
`Plaintiffs’ videos on YouTube on account of Plaintiffs’ race, and that “Plaintiffs are denied the
`
`same ‘benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions’ as White YouTube users.” Opp. at 10 (quoting
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1981(b)); see also SAC at ¶¶ 467–476. Thus, Plaintiffs allege that “[w]hile
`
`Defendants have impaired and denied, and continue to impair and deny, Plaintiffs’ contractual
`
`benefits under the TOS and related agreement(s), similarly situated persons who are not protected
`
`under the section 1981 protected class were not similarly treated.” Id. at ¶ 475.
`
`Defendants argue that these allegations are insufficient to state a claim for racial
`
`discrimination in the making or enforcement of contracts under Section 1981 because Plaintiffs
`
`have failed to adequately allege intentional racial discrimination. Mot. at 8. Specifically,
`
`Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to (1) identify any YouTube policy that discriminates
`
`on its face against Plaintiffs on the basis of race; or (2) allege facts that establish that defendants
`
`intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of race. Id. at 8–9. Furthermore,
`
`Defendants point out that Plaintiffs admit that only a portion of Plaintiffs’ videos have been
`
`restricted or demonetized, and “YouTube often re-monetized or removed restrictions from
`
`[Plaintiffs’] videos (when appropriate under YouTube’s policies) in response to their appeals.” Id.
`
`at 10 (citing SAC at ¶¶ 233–235, 265, 320).
`
`For the reasons stated below, the Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs have failed
`
`to state a claim under Section 1981 because Plaintiffs’ SAC does not “allege facts that would
`
`support an inference that defendants intentionally and purposefully discriminated against them.”
`
`Imagineering, 976 F.2d at 1313; see also Brignac v. Yelp Inc., 2019 WL 2372251, at *5 (N.D. Cal.
`
`June 5, 2019) (same).
`
`Plaintiffs argue that they have provided sufficient factual allegations to state a claim under
`
`Section 1981 for two reasons: (1) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have restricted and
`
`demonetized Plaintiffs’ videos on the basis of race, and Defendants do not restrict and demonetize
`
`Case No. 20-CV-04011-LHK
`ORDER GRANTING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`10
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011-LHK Document 68 Filed 06/25/21 Page 11 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`white content creators’ videos; (2) Defendants have admitted that they discriminate against
`
`Plaintiffs and other content creators on the basis of race. Opp. at 10. The Court addresses each
`
`argument in turn.
`
`First, Plaintiffs allege that YouTube has restricted and demonetized Plaintiffs’ videos
`
`despite the fact that these videos comply with YouTube’s TOS and other regulations. See SAC at
`
`¶¶ 134–144. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants do not restrict and demonetize the videos of
`
`white content creators that violate YouTube’s TOS and guidelines. Id. at ¶ 475. Thus, Plaintiffs
`
`allege that Defendants discriminate against Plaintiffs because of Plaintiffs’ race. Id. at ¶ 474.
`
`However, in order to state a Section 1981 claim under Ninth Circuit law, Plaintiffs must
`
`allege sufficient facts to support an inference that “defendants intentionally and purposefully
`
`discriminated against them.” Imagineering, 976 F.2d at 1313. Plaintiffs have failed to meet that
`
`standard here based on Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding Defendants’ moderation decisions.
`
`Specifically, Plaintiffs’ only factual allegation in support of an inference that Defendants
`
`intentionally and purposefully discrimination against Plaintiffs is Plaintiffs’ belief that
`
`Defendants’ moderation decisions were made because of Plaintiffs’ race.
`
`Plaintiffs’ “personal belief of discrimination, without any factual support, is insufficient to
`
`satisfy federal pleading standards.” Moralez v. Whole Foods Mkt. California, Inc., 2016 WL
`
`845291, at * 2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2016). “Rather, plaintiff must allege some facts that
`
`demonstrate that race was the reason for defendant’s actions.” Williams v. Tobener, 2016 WL
`
`5235039, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As
`
`such, Plaintiffs must provide further factual allegations that support an inference that Defendants
`
`“intentionally and purposefully discriminated against them” on the basis of race. Imagineering,
`
`976 F.2d at 1313.
`
`The Court notes that Plaintiffs do not allege that they have been removed from YouTube or
`
`prevented from posting their videos on YouTube. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ own allegations
`
`suggest that a large percentage of Plaintiffs’ videos remain available in Restricted Mode and
`
`Case No. 20-CV-04011-LHK
`ORDER GRANTING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`11
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011-LHK Document 68 Filed 06/25/21 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`eligible for monetization on YouTube. For example, Plaintiffs allege that their videos have
`
`received tens of millions of views and some Plaintiffs have received thousands of dollars in
`
`advertising revenue. SAC at ¶¶ 18–26 (providing allegations regarding Plaintiffs’ success on
`
`YouTube). The fact that so many of Plaintiffs’ videos remain freely available on YouTube and
`
`capable of receiving advertising revenue weighs against an inference that Defendants have
`
`intentionally and purposefully discriminated against Plaintiffs on the basis of race. Were race the
`
`motivating factor behind Defendants’ moderation decisions, the Court would expect that
`
`Plaintiffs’ videos would be largely unavailable and demonetized. For many Plaintiffs, the
`
`opposite appears to be true. See, e.g., id. at 248 (169 out of 178 of Plaintiff Lewis’ videos are
`
`viewable in Restricted More). Thus, Plaintiffs must provide further factual allegations in order to
`
`support their claim for intentional racial discrimination under Section 1981.
`
`Plaintiffs argue that they have provided further allegations in support of an inference of
`
`intentional and purposeful discrimination through allegations that Defendants have admitted to
`
`discriminating against Plaintiffs and other content creators on the basis of race. Opp. at 10. For
`
`the reasons below, Plaintiffs further allegations are insufficient to support an inference that
`
`Defendants “intentionally and purposefully discriminated” against Plaintiffs because of race.
`
`First, Plaintiffs allege that on March 19, 2017, Defendants admitted that they improperly
`
`censored videos made by LGBTQ+ users through Restricted Mode because of the identity of the
`
`speaker. SAC at ¶ 49. Second, Plaintiffs allege that during a call between a YouTube user and
`
`Google employee in Bangalore, India in January of 2018, the Google employee told the YouTube
`
`user that the user’s video was not eligible for advertising services because filtering tools had
`
`identified the user as being involved with the “gay thing.” Id. at ¶ 54. However, neither of these
`
`allegations regarding Defendants’ treatment of LGBTQ+ YouTube users provide any support to
`
`Plaintiffs’ allegation that Defendants intentionally and purposefully discriminated against
`
`Plaintiffs because of Plaintiffs’ race. Indeed, neither allegation involves Plaintiffs or racial
`
`discrimination of any kind.
`
`Case No. 20-CV-04011-LHK
`ORDER GRANTING WITH LEAVE TO AMEND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; DENYING
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`12
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-04011-LHK Document 68 Filed 06/25/21 Page 13 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`Plaintiffs further allege that on September 14, 2017, Defendants invited YouTube content
`
`creators to a meeting and admitted that the content filtering algorithm used by YouTube targeted
`
`African American, LGBTQ+, and other minority users. SAC at ¶ 51. Plaintiffs allege that
`
`Defendants “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.” Id. Defendants dispute that any such admission was made at this
`
`meeting. Reply at 3.
`
`However, even accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, these allegations do not support
`
`Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants intentionally and purposefully discriminated against Plaintiffs
`
`on the basis of race by intentionally restricting and demonetizing Plaintiffs’ videos. First,
`
`Plaintiffs’ own description of the meeting indicates that Defendants stated that any restrictions
`
`placed on users’ content w

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket