Prager Univ. v. Google LLC
| Decision Date | 26 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 17-CV-06064-LHK |
| Parties | PRAGER UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE LLC, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Plaintiff Prager University ("Plaintiff") sues Defendants YouTube, LLC ("YouTube") and Google LLC ("Google") (collectively, "Defendants") for allegedly censoring some of the videos that Plaintiff uploaded on YouTube based on Plaintiff's conservative political identity and viewpoint. Before the Court are (1) Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 24); and (2) Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 31).1 Having considered the parties' briefing, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS with leave toamend Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's federal causes of action, DISMISSES with leave to amend Plaintiff's state law causes of action, and DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff is "an educational 501(c)(3) nonprofit company" with its principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California. ECF No. 1 ("Compl.") ¶ 17. Plaintiff states that its "mission" is to "provide conservative viewpoints and perspectives on public issues that it believes are often overlooked or ignored." Id. ¶ 33. As part of its mission, Plaintiff creates short educational videos, the content of which "espouses viewpoints and perspectives based on conservative values." Id. ¶ 34. Despite its name, Plaintiff "is not an academic institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas." Id.
Defendant YouTube is a "for profit limited liability corporation" that is "wholly owned by" Defendant Google, a "for profit, public corporation." Id. ¶¶ 18-19. Both Defendants are "organized under the laws of the State of Delaware," and have their principal place of business in Mountain View, California. Id. YouTube is the "largest video-sharing website in the world." Id. ¶ 36. YouTube "allows users to upload, view, rate, share, add to favorites, report, [and] comment on videos." Id.
Plaintiff states that Defendants "hold YouTube out to the public as a forum intended to defend and protect free speech where members of the general public may speak, express, and exchange their ideas." Id. ¶ 3. Specifically, Plaintiff points to Defendants' representations that "voices matter" and that YouTube is "committed to fostering a community where everyone's voice can be heard." Id. Plaintiff further identifies statements made by YouTube in its "Official Blog" that (1) YouTube's "mission" is to "give people a voice" in a "place to express yourself" and in a "community where everyone's voice can be heard"; and (2) YouTube is "one of the largest and most diverse collections of self-expression in history" that gives "people opportunitiesto share their voice and talent no matter where they are from or what their age or point of view." Id. ¶ 28. Plaintiff states that "[s]ince its inception, [Plaintiff] has posted more than 250 of [its] videos on" YouTube. Id. ¶ 34.
Plaintiff alleges that, despite YouTube's purported viewpoint neutrality, Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff's political identity and viewpoint by censoring certain videos that Plaintiff uploaded on YouTube. Id. ¶ 52. According to Plaintiff, this censorship takes the form of putting age restrictions on some of Plaintiff's videos and/or excluding them from YouTube's "Restricted Mode" setting. YouTube's "Restricted Mode" setting is an "optional feature to help institutions like schools as well as people who wanted to better control the content they see on YouTube." Id. Defendants "ensure that videos containing potentially mature content will not be shown to viewers who have Restricted Mode turned on" based on certain criteria contained in different "guidelines." Id. ¶ 42. For example, Defendants apply a set of "Restricted Mode Guidelines" that contain criteria like whether the video in question contains discussions about drug use, "overly detailed conversations about" sex, or "inappropriate language." Id. Further, if a video is "flagged" as "inappropriate" by a viewer, a "team" of YouTube employees will review that video for "violations of [YouTube's] Community Guidelines," which focus on "[n]udity of sexual content," "[v]iolent or graphic content," "[h]armful or dangerous content," "[h]ateful content," copyright violations, "threats," "spam, misleading metadata, and scams." Id. ¶ 43. Beyond that, "on some occasions, a video may not violate the Community Guidelines but may still be subject to" an age restriction—and are therefore made "not visible to users who are logged out, are under 18 years of age, or have Restricted Mode enabled"—based on certain age-restriction criteria, including "vulgar language," "violence and distributing imagery," "nudity and sexually suggestive content," and "portrayal of harmful or dangerous activities involving content that intends to incite violence or encourage dangerous or illegal activities." Id. ¶ 45. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants provide "a limited appeal process for any users who believe that the application of age restriction filtering to theuser's video contents is unwarranted or inappropriate." Id. ¶ 46. Users may appeal the age restriction on any particular video only once. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that although YouTube has insisted in the past that YouTube's Restricted Mode and age restriction filtering—which purportedly apply the criteria described above—should not and are not intended to filter out content based on political viewpoints, see id. ¶ 51, Defendants have restricted access to some of Plaintiff's videos "based on [Defendants'] animus towards [Plaintiff's] political identity and viewpoint." Id. ¶ 52. Plaintiff also appears to allege that Defendants have "demonetized" some of Plaintiff's videos—by preventing advertisements from running on those videos—in a viewpoint-discriminatory manner. See id. ¶ 91 (). Plaintiff does not allege, however, that any of Plaintiff's videos have been completely removed from YouTube. As discussed above, Plaintiff alleges only that some of Plaintiff's videos have been demonetized or censored (in the form of an age restriction or exclusion from the Restricted Mode setting) based on Defendants' intolerance towards Plaintiff's political views.
To support its allegations of viewpoint discrimination, Plaintiff includes a chart that lists (1) a number of Plaintiff's videos to which access has been restricted by YouTube; and (2) various unrestricted videos that discuss the same topics as Plaintiff's videos, but from a liberal perspective. See id. at 26-32. For example, the chart shows that one of Plaintiff's videos titled "Are 1 in 5 women in college raped?" has been restricted by YouTube, but that another video titled "Author Jon Krakauer on new book 'Missoula' and college rape epidemic" and uploaded by the "CBS This Morning" channel has no such restriction. Id. at 26. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that content from some of Plaintiff's restricted videos "was not restricted after it was copied and posted by other content providers or vloggers." Id. ¶ 70.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' discriminatory censorship of Plaintiff's videos "continues to this day." Id. ¶ 67. Plaintiff's chart indicates that as of October 23, 2017, at least twenty-one of Plaintiff's videos remain restricted by YouTube. See id. at 26-32.
On October 23, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant suit against Defendants. See Compl. Plaintiff's complaint asserts seven causes of action: (1) violation of Article I, section 2 of the California Constitution; (2) violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; (3) violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act"), Cal. Civ. Code. § 51 et seq.; (4) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (6) violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 et seq.; and (7) a claim for declaratory relief based on Defendants' alleged violations of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; Article I, section 2 of the California Constitution; the Unruh Act; and the Lanham Act. Compl. ¶¶ 74-122.2
On December 29, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, see ECF No. 24, and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. See ECF No. 31 ("Mot."). On February 9, 2018, Defendants opposed Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion, see ECF No. 37, and Plaintiff opposed Defendants' motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 33 ("Opp."). Then, on February 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction, see ECF No. 41, and Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. See ECF No. 39 ("Reply").
Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." A complaint that fails to meet this standard may be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The United States Supreme Court has held that Rule 8(a) requires a plaintiff to plead"enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial