Case 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 1 of 40
`
` 
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`MIAMI DIVISION
`
`DONALD J. TRUMP, the Forty-Fifth
`President of the United States, KELLY
`VICTORY, AND AUSTEN FLETCHER,
`INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
`THE CLASS,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC., and SUNDAR PICHAI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`
`FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION
`
`JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Donald J. Trump, the Forty-Fifth President of the United States,
`
`individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated Putative Class Members, by and through
`
`the undersigned counsel, brings this action against YouTube, LLC. (“YouTube”), and Sundar
`
`Pichai, the Chief Executive Officer of Google, Inc. and Alphabet, Inc. The allegations herein of
`
`Plaintiff and Putative Class Members are based upon personal knowledge and belief as to their
`
`own acts, upon the investigation of their counsel, and upon information and belief as to all other
`
`matters.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant YouTube has accumulated an unprecedented concentration of power,
`
`market share, and ability to dictate our nation’s public discourse. YouTube generated $19.7
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 2 of 40
`
` 
`billion in revenue in 2020, up from $80 million in 2010. Over 2.3 billion people access
`
`YouTube at least once every month. YouTube’s owner is Alphabet, which is also the parent of
`
`Google. YouTube ranks second in global engagement behind Facebook. YouTube could be
`
`worth $140-300 Billion if “spun into” its own company, according to Business of Apps, citing
`
`VentureBeat.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant YouTube has increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship
`
`resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230 of the
`
`Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, and willful participation in joint activity with federal
`
`actors. Defendant YouTube’s status thus rises beyond that of a private company to that of a state
`
`actor. As such, Defendant is constrained by the First Amendment right to free speech in the
`
`censorship decisions it makes regarding its Users.
`
`4.
`
`Legislation passed twenty-five (25) years ago intended to protect minors from the
`
`transmission of obscene materials on the Internet, and to promote the growth and development of
`
`social media companies, has enabled Defendant YouTube to grow into a commercial giant that
`
`now censors (flags, demonetization, bans, etc.) and otherwise restricts with impunity the
`
`constitutionally protected free speech of the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members.
`
`5.
`
`The immediacy of Defendants’ threat to its Users’ and potentially every citizen’s
`
`right to free speech, cannot be overstated. Defendants’ callous disregard of its Users’
`
`constitutional rights is no better exemplified than in the matter currently before the Court.
`
`6.
`
`On January 12, 2021, Defendants indefinitely banned the sitting President of the
`
`United States from its platform for exercising his constitutional right of free speech on his
`
`YouTube channel.
`
`7.
`
`Censorship runs rampant against the Putative Class Members, and the result is a
`
`chilling effect cast over our nation’s pressing political, medical, social, and cultural discussions.
`
` 
`
`2 
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 3 of 40
`
` 
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff, a sitting President of the United States, was banned by the Defendants,
`
`as were Putative Class Members, using non-existent or broad, vague, and ever-shifting standards.
`
`While YouTube’s ban and prior restraint of Plaintiff are well-documented, the untold stories of
`
`Putative Class Members are now stirring the public conscience.
`
`9.
`
`Using the unconstitutional authority delegated to them by Congress, Defendants
`
`have also mounted an aggressive campaign of censorship against a multitude of Putative Class
`
`Members through censorship (flagging, demonetizing, banning, etc.) resulting from legislative
`
`coercion.
`
`10.
`
`Defendants deplatformed Plaintiff, and Putative Class Members, at the behest of,
`
`with cooperation from, and the approval of, Democrat lawmakers.
`
`11.
`
`Akin to forcing a round peg into a square hole, YouTube declared that specific
`
`uploads of Plaintiff had violated YouTube’s self-imposed “Community Guidelines.” Countless
`
`other YouTube Users have not been as fortunate, with YouTube taking detrimental action against
`
`their entire video library with no explanation whatsoever.
`
`12.
`
`If Defendants reliance on an unconstitutional delegation of authority to regulate
`
`free speech and under pressure from Congress, can effectively censor, and impose a prior
`
`restraint on the protected political speech of a sitting President of the United States, then the
`
`threat to Putative Class Members, our citizens, and our United States Constitution and form of
`
`government, is imminent, severe, and irreparable.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court to declare that Section 230 on its face is an
`
`unconstitutional delegation of authority and that the Defendants’ actions directed at the Plaintiff
`
`and the Putative Class Members are a prior restraint on their First Amendment right to free
`
`speech, to order the Defendants to restore the YouTube channel of Plaintiff, as well as those
`
`deplatformed Putative Class Members, and to prohibit Defendants from exercising censorship,
`
` 
`
`3 
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 4 of 40
`
` 
`editorial control or prior restraint in its many forms over the uploads of President Trump, and
`
`Putative Class Members.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1332,
`
`14.
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, and the Constitution of the United States for the unconstitutional
`
`violation of the First Amendment right to free speech as pleaded below.
`
`15.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1332.
`
`16.
`
`Jurisdiction is also proper in this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (“CAFA”), because: (i) the proposed class consists of well over 1,000,000
`
`Members; (ii) the Members of the proposed Class, including the Plaintiff, are citizens of states
`
`different from Defendant’s home states; and (iii) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds
`
`$5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`17. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), (d), and (e)(1). A
`
`substantial part of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this District, and Plaintiff
`
`brings this suit for actions taken by Defendants that occurred while Plaintiff was serving in his
`
`capacity as President of the United States, and the Defendants’ prior restraint of Plaintiff’s
`
`speech continues to this day.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`18.
`
`Donald J. Trump (“Plaintiff”), the 45th President of the United States, is a private
`
`citizen and is domiciled in Palm Beach, Florida.
`
` 
`
`4 
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 5 of 40
`
` 
`
`19.
`
`Kelly Victory (“Plaintiff”), a United States citizen, domiciled in the state of
`
`Colorado.
`
`20.
`
`Austen Fletcher (“Plaintiff”), a United States citizen, domiciled in the state of
`
`Florida.
`
`Class
`
`21.
`
`All YouTube platform Users (“Putative Class Members”) who have resided in the
`
`United States between June 1, 2018, and today and had their YouTube channels censored by
`
`Defendants and were damaged thereby.
`
`Defendants
`
`22.
`
`Defendant, YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”), is a foreign limited liability company
`
`with its principal place of business located at 901 Cherry Avenue, San Bruno, California, and
`
`conducts business in the State of Florida, throughout the United States, and internationally.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant, Defendant, Sundar Pichai (“Pichai”), is the Chief Executive Officer of
`
`Google, Inc. and Alphabet, Inc. and is responsible for the acts alleged herein of YouTube.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`I.
`
`DEFENDANTS YOUTUBE AND PICHAI
`
`A. Defendant YouTube
`
`24.
`
`YouTube was conceived as a dating site but quickly became a video streaming
`
`service. The site went live in 2005 and had its first one (1) million videos viewed that same year.
`
`25.
`
`By 2006, YouTube was one of the fastest-growing sites on the Internet. In less
`
`than one year, the platform went from 4.9 million to 19.6 million users. In October 2006,
`
`Google acquired the video-sharing platform for $1.65 billion.
`
`26.
`
`YouTube operates as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google and Alphabet.
`
` 
`
`5 
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 6 of 40
`
` 
`
`27.
`
`In 2020, YouTube boasted 37 million channels and 1.3 billion users, with three
`
`hundred (300) hours of video uploaded every minute and five (5) billion videos launched every
`
`day. It is one of the largest and most popular video distribution platforms on the Internet. It has
`
`more than four (4) billion hours of videos viewers every month, and an estimated five hundred
`
`(500) hours of video content are uploaded to YouTube every passing minute.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`As of 2018, YouTube’s estimated worth was $160 billion.
`
`YouTube’s Community Standards Guidelines regarding hate speech, incitement,
`
`or praise of violence are vague, broad, ill-defined, or not defined at all.
`
`30.
`
`YouTube’s Community Standards Guidelines on Hate Speech provide:
`
`Hate speech is not allowed on YouTube. We remove content promoting violence or
`hatred against individuals or groups based on any of the following attributes: Age, Caste,
`Disability, Ethnicity, Gender Identity and Expression, Nationality, Race, Immigration
`Status, Religion, Sex/Gender, Sexual Orientation, Victims of a major violent event and
`their kin, Veteran Status.
`
`
`
`31. Community Standards Guidelines on Incitement of Violence:
`
`Violent or gory content intended to shock or disgust viewers is not allowed on YouTube.
`Also, content that encourages others to commit violent acts is not allowed….
`What this Policy means for you… If you’re posting content, Violent acts:
` Inciting others to commit violent acts against individuals are a defined group of
`people…
`
`B. Defendant Sundar Pichai
`
`32.
`
`Defendant Sundar Pichai is the Chief Executive Officer of Google, Inc. and the
`
`Chief Executive Officer of Alphabet, Inc., the parent company of Google.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant Pichai exercises control over and implementation of the content and
`
`policy of YouTube and has spoken on behalf of and represented YouTube at Congressional
`
`hearings.
`
`
`
` 
`
`6 
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 7 of 40
`
` 
`II. PLAINTIFF’S USE OF YOUTUBE CHANNEL
`
`A. The Donald J. Trump YouTube Channel
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff established his official YouTube channel in May of 2015 and initially
`
`used the channel to engage with the public. After he announced his campaign for the presidential
`
`nomination of the Republican Party, Plaintiff used his YouTube channel to speak directly to his
`
`followers and the public at large. By using social media, including YouTube, President Trump
`
`strategically circumvented what he saw as a mainstream media that was biased against him.
`
`35.
`
`Similarly, members of the Class use their YouTube channels to share information,
`
`opinions, and news with their network ranging from family and friends to larger public
`
`audiences. YouTube channels can also be monetized, providing an avenue for users to earn
`
`income.
`
`36.
`
`After his inauguration as President in January of 2017, Plaintiff’s YouTube
`
`channel became an instrument of his presidency. By virtue of the way he used his channel,
`
`Plaintiff’s messages became an important source of news and information about the government,
`
`as did his followers’ comments associated with Plaintiff’s posts. Plaintiff’s channel became a
`
`public forum for speech by, to, and about government policy.
`
`37. When Plaintiff utilized his YouTube channel in his official capacity as President:
`
`(a) it became an important outlet for news organizations and the U.S. government; and (b) his
`
`YouTube account operated as a public forum, serving a public function.
`
`38.
`
`The comments generated by Plaintiff’s YouTube uploads also gave rise to
`
`important public discussion and debate about government policy. Typically, his uploads would
`
`generate thousands of replies posted by other Users, some of which would generate hundreds or
`
`thousands of replies in turn. President Trump’s channel was a digital town hall in which the
`
`President of the United States communicated news and information to the public directly.
`
` 
`
`7 
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 8 of 40
`
` 
`Members of the public used the comment function to respond directly to President Trump and
`
`his office and to exchange views with one another.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff used his YouTube channel to interact on a myriad of subjects with the
`
`public at large. Supporters and critics alike were welcome on Plaintiff’s YouTube channel. No
`
`one was excluded, regardless of their views.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff used YouTube and other social media platforms to communicate directly
`
`with American citizens more than any other President in history.
`
`41.
`
`Not only were Plaintiff’s YouTube uploads accessible to his subscribers, but other
`
`members of the public could, and did, access his posts at any time on the Internet.
`
`42.
`
`The Putative Class Members used their YouTube channels in a similar fashion,
`
`sharing information, opinions, photographs, videos, and news with their networks, ranging from
`
`friends and family to larger public audiences.
`
`43.
`
`The Putative Class Members on YouTube can monetize the uploads on their
`
`channel, and some depend on income generated from subscribers for a living. Censorship actions
`
`taken by YouTube against the Putative Class Members resulted in financial damages for those
`
`Putative Class Members.
`
`
`
`III. DEMOCRAT LEGISLATORS COERCED DEFENDANTS TO CENSOR THE
`PLAINTIFF AND PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS
`
`44.
`
`Democrat legislators feared Plaintiff’s skilled use of social media as a threat to
`
`their own re-election efforts. These legislators exerted overt coercion, using both words and
`
`actions, to have Defendants censor the views and content with which Democrat Members of
`
`Congress disagreed, of both the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members.
`
`45.
`
`Not only did Democrat legislators openly voice their displeasure with Defendants
`
`for providing a platform to Plaintiff and Putative Class Members, but they also spoke publicly of
`
` 
`
`8 
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 9 of 40
`
` 
`the steps they would take against Defendants if Defendants continued to provide a platform for
`
`the expression of views and content contrary to the legislators’ own agendas.
`
`46.
`
`Legislators (and in one instance Michelle Obama, the former First Lady) made it
`
`increasingly clear that they wanted Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members, and the views and
`
`content they espoused, to be banned from Defendants’ platform.
`
`47.
`
` With Defendants shielded from liability for engaging in censorship by Section
`
`230, the Democrat legislators then wielded that immunity, combined with threats to revoke that
`
`immunity or otherwise to regulate Defendants, to use Defendants as a tool to effect censorship
`
`and viewpoint discrimination against Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members that the Democrat
`
`legislators knew they could not accomplish on their own.
`
`48.
`
`Below are just some examples of Democrat legislators threatening new
`
`regulations, antitrust breakup, and removal of Section 230 immunity for Defendants and other
`
`social media platforms if YouTube did not censor views and content with which these Members
`
`of Congress disagreed, including the views and content of Plaintiff and the Putative Class
`
`Members:
`
` “But I do think that for the privilege of 230, there has to be a bigger sense of responsibility
`on it. And it is not out of the question that that could be removed.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi,
`Speaker of the House, April 12, 2019);
`
` “The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately
`should be revoked, number one. For Pichai and other platforms.” (Joe Biden/Interview in
`December of 2019 and published January 2020);
`
` “We can and should have a conversation about Section 230. – and the ways in which it
`has enabled platforms to turn a blind eye as their platforms are used to . . . enable
`domestic terrorist groups to organize violence in plain sight.” (Statement of US Sen.
`Mark Warner on Section 230 Hearing on October 28, 2020.);
`
` “It’s long past time to hold the social media companies accountable for what’s published
`on their platforms.” (Bruce Reed, Biden’s Top Tech Advisor/December 2, 2020);
`
`9 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 10 of 40
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
` @jack (Jack Dorsey) Time to do something about this Tweet. (Sen. Kamala Harris’
`Tweet, October 2, 2019);
`
` 2020 Presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris calls on Twitter to suspend President
`Trump’s account – (ABC News (go.com) October 2, 2019);
`
`
`
`If the president goes on Facebook and encourages violence, that you will make sure your
`company’s algorithms don’t spread that content and you will immediately remove those
`messages? (Sen. Markey October 28, 2020 (Zuckerberg Senate Testimony));
`
` “Senator, yes. Incitement of violence is against our policy and there are not exceptions to
`that, including for politicians.” Mark Zuckerberg response, (November 17, 2020, Mark
`Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, Senate Tech Hearing);
`
` “…Daily, the president shocks our conscience and shakes the very foundations of our
`democracy using a powerful megaphone, social media. The President has used this
`microphone to spread vicious falsehoods and an apparent attempt to overturn the will of
`voters… Now, Mr. Zuckerberg and Mr. Dorsey, you have built terrifying tools of
`persuasion and manipulation with power far exceeding the robber barons of the last
`Gilded Age.” (Sen. Blumenthal (13:35) October 23, 2020: Tech CEO’s Senate
`Testimony)
`
`
`
`I have urged, in fact, a breakup of tech giants because they’ve misused their bigness and
`power. And indeed Section 230 reform, meaningful reform, including even possible
`repeal in large part because their immunity is way too broad and victims of their harms
`deserve a day in court. (Sen Blumenthal (14:48) October 23, 2020: Tech CEO’s Senate
`Testimony);
`
` “Now is the time for Silicon Valley companies to stop enabling this monstrous behavior
`and go even further than they have already by permanently banning this man (Trump)
`from their platforms. (Michelle Obama on Twitter, January 7, 2021);
`
` “The law (230) acts as a shield allowing them (Internet platforms) to turn a blind eye. The
`SAFE TECH ACT brings 230 into the modern age and makes platforms accountable for
`the harm they cause.” (Sen. Mazie Hirono’s Tweet, February 5, 2021);
`
` Before the hearing the following statement was issued by the respective Democrat
`Chairmen. “This hearing will continue the Committee’s work of holding online platforms
`accountable for the growing rise of misinformation and disinformation. Industry self-
`regulation has failed. We must begin the work of changing incentives driving social
`media companies to allow and even promote misinformation and disinformation.” (March
`2021 Joint Hearing of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee); and
`
` “There’s no Constitutional protection for using social media to incite an insurrection.
`Trump is willing to do anything for himself no matter the danger to our country. His big
`lies have cost America dearly. And until he stops, YouTube must ban him. Which is to
`say, forever.” (Rep. Adam Schiff’s Tweet, May 5, 2021).
`
`10 
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 11 of 40
`
` 
`
`
`
`49.
`
`Democrat Legislators not only voiced their threats (e.g., new regulations and
`
`removing Section 230 immunity) to social media platforms, but they also employed additional
`
`measures to deliver their unmistakable message that they were prepared to act against the social
`
`media platforms if Defendants did not increase their censorship of disfavored views and content
`
`of Plaintiff, and Putative Class Members.
`
`50.
`
`These additional measures included convening public hearings, issuing
`
`subpoenas, dragging in the CEOs of the largest social media companies to testify publicly before
`
`Congress, and subjecting these CEOs to lengthy, embarrassing questioning.
`
`
`
`51.
`
`Some specific examples of these coercive actions were extended on Defendants:
`
`On July 29, 2020, Four Big Tech CEOs testified before the House in an antitrust hearing.
`Amazon Founder and CEO Jeff Bezos, Facebook Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg,
`Apple CEO Tim Cook, and Pichai attempted to defend their companies against
`accusations of anticompetitive practices. (Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 6:
`Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google | U.S. House of
`Representatives Judiciary Committee); and
`
`On October 23, 2020, Mark Zuckerberg Testimony Transcript: Zuckerberg Testifies on
`Facebook Cryptocurrency Libra and Is Confronted on Child Exploitation on Facebook.
`(Zuckerberg Testifies on Facebook Cryptocurrency Libra | October 23, 2019); and
`
`
`On November 17, 2020, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey
`testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 17. They were questioned
`on speech moderation policies. (Censorship, Suppression, and the 2020 Election |
`Hearings | November 17, 2020); and
`
`
`On March 25, 2021, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter's Jack Dorsey, and Pichai
`appeared virtually before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. (House Hearing
`on Combating Online Misinformation and Disinformation | March 25, 2021); and
`
`52. With this coercion directed at Defendants by repeatedly requiring their
`
`appearance at hearings, and reinforcing their potential to impose regulations, and strip them of
`
` 
`
`11 
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 12 of 40
`
` 
`230 immunity, Democrat legislators were intended to force Defendant into permanently banning
`
`Plaintiff’s access to his YouTube channel, his subscribers, and the public at large. The ancillary
`
`benefit was to deny the public access to Plaintiff’s content and views.
`
`53.
`
`The message conveyed by Democrat legislators to Defendants was clear: use the
`
`authority of Section 230 to ban Plaintiff and those Putative Class Members who uploaded
`
`content and views contrary to those legislators’ preferred points of view or lose the competitive
`
`protections of Section 230 and tens of billions of dollars of market share altogether.
`
`54.
`
`The legislators who pressured Defendants to censor Plaintiff and Putative Class
`
`Members who supported his views employed social media themselves extensively to
`
`communicate with their own constituents, promote their accomplishments in office, and
`
`fundraise and campaign.
`
`55. With Plaintiff removed from YouTube, it is considerably more difficult for
`
`Plaintiff to act as head of the Republican Party, campaign for Republican candidates, fundraise,
`
`and lay the groundwork for his own potential campaign run for the 2024 Republican Party
`
`nomination for President of the United States.
`
`56.
`
`Likewise, with Plaintiff now removed from YouTube and other social media
`
`platforms, it has ended balanced, direct public discussions between competing political views on
`
`national and local issues.
`
`57.
`
`By banning Plaintiff, Defendants have made it more difficult for Plaintiff to
`
`communicate directly with the American public. Our national discourse is becoming
`
`immeasurably more altered and one-sided on race, medicine, the election process, the economy,
`
`immigration, etc.
`
` 
`
`12 
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 13 of 40
`
` 
`
`IV. CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION SIGNIFICANTLY ENCOURAGED
`DEFENDANTS’ CENSORSHIP OF PLAINTIFF AND THE PUTATIVE CLASS
`MEMBERS
`
`58.
`
`YouTube is currently one of the largest social media platforms. Its very existence
`
`and growth have been directly fueled by Congressional legislation.
`
`59.
`
`In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which
`
`amended the Telecommunications Act of 1934 Section 230(c) intending to promote the growth
`
`and development of social media platforms, as well as protect against the transmission of
`
`obscene materials over the Internet to children.
`
`60.
`
`It is Congressional legislation commonly referred to as simply Section 230, or the
`
`“Good Samaritan” provision, that YouTube relies on to censor constitutionally permissible free
`
`speech on Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members.
`
`61.
`
`Section 230(c) provides:
`
`(1). TREATMENT OF PUBLISHER OR SPEAKER
`No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or
`speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
`
`(2). CIVIL LIABILITY
`No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account
`of—
`
`A. any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or
`availability of material that the provider or user considers being
`obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or
`otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is
`constitutionally protected; or
`B. any action taken to enable or make available to information content
`providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material
`described in paragraph (1).
`
`13 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 14 of 40
`
` 
`
`62.
`
`Section 230(c) has accomplished and exceeded its original purpose in terms of
`
`promoting the growth and development of social media platforms.
`
`63.
`
`For example, YouTube is one of the largest and most popular video distribution
`
`platforms on the Internet. It has more than four (4) billion hours of video views every month, and
`
`an estimated five (500) hours of video content are uploaded to YouTube every passing minute.
`
`64.
`
`In 2020 alone, YouTube boasted thirty-seven (37) million channels, 1.3 billion
`
`people used YouTube, three hundred (300) hours of video were uploaded every minute, and five
`
`(5) billion videos were uploaded every day.
`
`65.
`
`As recently as this week, Defendant has been actively censoring any coverage,
`
`direct or indirect, of Plaintiff. Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN) was suspended for
`
`seven (7) days from YouTube’s platform, preventing it from livestreaming a rally held by
`
`Plaintiff in Sarasota, Florida.
`
`66.
`
`Defendant also removed several of Plaintiff’s rally videos from RBSN’s account,
`
`in addition to the suspension.
`
`67.
`
`RBSN reported it was suspended from YouTube and noted remarks from the
`
`Plaintiff that caused the deletion and suspension. YouTube provided the below explanation:
`
` 
`
`14 
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 15 of 40
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`This is targeted censorship, including prior restraint, in its purest form.
`
`In terms of addressing the transmission of obscene materials, including terrorist
`
`activity, over the Internet, YouTube has failed.
`
`70.
`
`For example, on July 3, 2021, police arrested a group of eleven (11) heavily
`
`armed people who call themselves “The Rise of the Moors” after an armed standoff in the middle
`
`of a highway near Boston, Massachusetts. According to local police, the group claimed that they
`
` 
`
`15 
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 16 of 40
`
` 
`did not recognize U.S. or Massachusetts law. Yet this group has a YouTube account and spreads
`
`their message there without their account being taken down.
`
`71.
`
`As discussed in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Leary, Mary Graw,
`
`The Indecency and Injustice of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Vol. 41, No. 2,
`
`pg. 564, 565 (2018):
`
`Congress expressly stated that th[is] is the policy of the United States ‘to ensure vigorous
`enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity,
`stalking, and harassment by means of computer.’ That said, Congress appeared to
`recognize that unlimited tort-based lawsuits would threaten the then-fragile Internet and
`the ‘freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium.’
`Although these two goals required some balancing, it was clear from the text and
`legislative history of § 230 that it was never intended to provide a form of absolute
`immunity for any and all actions taken by interactive computer services. Section 230 is
`not ‘a general prohibition of civil liability for web-site operators and other content hosts.’
`Rather, Congress sought to provide limited protections for limited actions.
`72.
`In passing 230(c), Congress permits, but does not mandate, action by social media
`
`platforms.
`
`
`Section 230(c) permits YouTube to take down or block speech deemed
`“objectionable… whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”
`
` 
`
`
`Section 230(c) also pre-empts all conflicting state laws, preventing such censorship
`from being “made illegal… by any provisions of the laws of a State.”
`
`
`73.
`
`In relying on the permissive language of Section 230 and statements and actions
`
`of Democrat legislators, those legislators made it clear that they had a “strong preference” for the
`
`censoring of the views and content of the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members regarding, for
`
`example:
`
` 
`
`
`COVID-19 “misinformation,” including the lack of safety and efficacy of
`hydroxychloroquine and the use of face masks.
`
` 
`
`16 
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 17 of 40
`
` 
`
`
`COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan province of China and was a transmission
`from scientists in a government.
`
`Questioning the integrity and results of the 2020 Presidential election.
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
`74.
`
`Neither Plaintiff nor Putative Class Members were “free to decline” the speech
`
`restrictions imposed by YouTube in its Terms of Service (TOS) if they wished to use the
`
`YouTube platform. Use of its platform was expressly conditioned on agreeing to these
`
`restrictions, or User access was denied.
`
`75.
`
`Federal actors are also sharing the fruits of YouTube censorship of Plaintiff and
`
`Members of the Class. These benefits include:
`
`
`The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the White House have
`used Defendants to inexpensively and effectively promote their directives, messages, and
`policies concerning COVID-19; and suppress contradictory medical views and conten
`
` 
`
`
`Suppression of information suggesting or showing flaws in CDC and/or other
`federal governmental policy;
`
`
`
`Increasing the number of visitors to the CDC’s website;
`
` 
`
` 
`
`
`Boosting the CDC’s highly questionable reputation as reliable and authoritative in
`its factual and policy determinations;
`
` 
`
`
`Creating a false impression of unequivocal support in the scientific community
`for the CDC and other governmental directives;
`
` 
`
`
`And suppression of opinions and information that might lead people to take
`actions contrary to the government’s preferences.
`
`
` 
`
`V. DEFENDANTS WILLFUL PARTICIPATION IN JOINT ACTIVITY WITH
`FEDERAL ACTORS TO CENSOR PLAINTIFF AND THE PUTATIVE CLASS
`MEMBERS
`
`
` 
`
`17 
`
`

`

`Case 0:21-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2021 Page 18 of 40
`
` 
`
`76. The CDC has publicly stated that it works with “social media partners,” including
`
`YouTube, to “curb the spread of vaccine misinformation.” In a document dated October 11,
`
`2019, the CDC expressly stated that it was “engaging . . . partners” to “contain the spread of
`
`[vaccine] misinformation” and specifically states that the CDC would “work with social media
`
`companies” to that end.
`
`77. YouTube is among the social media “partners” referred to by