YouTube’s claims about allowing free speech are merely puffery, court holds

Prager University v. Google LLC, No. 17-CV-06064, 2018 WL
1471939 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2018)
Prager’s “mission” is to “provide conservative viewpoints
and perspectives on public issues that it believes are often overlooked or
ignored” by creating educational videos, though, despite its name, Prager “is
not an academic institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas.”
Google allegedly “hold[s] 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.” However, Google allegedly
discriminated against Prager’s viewpoint by censoring certain videos that it
uploaded on YouTube by putting age restrictions on some of Plaintiff’s videos
and/or excluding them from YouTube’s “Restricted Mode” setting, which helps
schools and other content-screeners by keeping out content that violates
YouTube’s guidelines.  Although YouTube
has insisted in the past that Restricted Mode and age restriction filtering
aren’t supposed to filter out content based on political viewpoints, Google
allegedly restricted access to some of Prager’s videos “based on [Defendants’]
animus towards [Plaintiff’s] political identity and viewpoint.” Additionally,
Google allegedly “demonetized” some of Plaintiff’s videos—by preventing
advertisements from running on those videos—in a viewpoint-discriminatory manner.
 For example, Prager’s “Are 1 in 5 women
in college raped?” has been restricted by YouTube, but “Author Jon Krakauer on
new book ‘Missoula’ and college rape epidemic” uploaded by “CBS This Morning” has
no such restriction. Prager further alleged that content from some of its
restricted videos “was not restricted after it was copied and posted by other
content providers or vloggers.”
Prager asserted violations of the First Amendment, the
California Constitution, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, the UCL, and
the Lanham Act, as well as breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.  The court kicked out the
federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
state claims.
First Amendment: Google isn’t a state actor. Marsh v. Alabama “plainly did not go so
far as to hold that any private property owner ‘who operates its property as a
public forum for speech’ automatically becomes a state actor who must comply
with the First Amendment.”
Lanham Act: The alleged implication that Prager’s videos
were “inappropriate” was, first, pure implication; Prager didn’t identify any
Google statements about YT’s classification of those videos. The mere
implications arising from decisions to restrict access couldn’t constitute “commercial
advertising or promotion” within the meaning of the Lanham Act. Prager alleged
no facts that remotely suggested that Google restricted access to Prager’s
videos for any “promotional purpose” or “as part of an organized campaign to
penetrate the relevant market,” or that the implications of Google’s
restriction decisions regarding Prager’s videos was “disseminated sufficiently
to the relevant purchasing public to constitute ‘advertising’ or ‘promotion.’ ”
YT’s policies and guidelines setting forth what videos will
be restricted also didn’t constitute commercial advertising or promotion. They
were more akin to instruction manuals for physical products, which “are not
advertisements or promotions.”
Nor did Prager sufficiently allege harm resulting from the allegedly
false policies and guidelines. Although Prager alleged decreased viewership, ad
revenue, and advertiser relationships, nothing suggested that this harm flowed
from Google’s publication of its guidelines, as opposed to the decision to restrict
Prager’s videos.
Google’s allegedly false statements about its viewpoint
neutrality (“voices matter” and YouTube is “committed to fostering a community
where everyone’s voice can be heard,” 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 YouTube is “one of the largest and most diverse
collections of self-expression in history” that gives “people opportunities to
share their voice and talent no matter where they are from or what their age or
point of view”) were all puffery.  They
weren’t quantifiable or specific enough to be measurable.  Thus these statements were neither “[ ]likely
to induce consumer reliance,” nor “capable of being proved false.”
In addition, Prager didn’t sufficiently allege harm from these
statements, for the reasons given above.
Prager also alleged that it relied on false representations
contained in the parties’ agreements: YT’s representations that Google endeavors
to “help you grow,” “discover what works best for you,” and “giv[e] you tools,
insights and best practices for using your voice and videos.” First, these
claims were no more than puffery. Second, Prager lacked standing under the
Lanham Act as a consumer.

from Blogger

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s