YouTube’s TOS restricts the importing of content material depicting animal abuse, outlined as “content material that reveals the malicious infliction of significant bodily or psychological hurt that causes an animal to endure.” The TOS gives further particulars about what YouTube considers impermissible animal abuse.
Lady Freethinker is an animal rights advocacy group with the tagline “ending cruelty for all beings.” It claims that it created a YouTube account predicated on YouTube promising to curb animal abuse content material. However, such content material might be simply discovered on YouTube. Thus, Woman Freethinker sued YouTube for breach of contract and associated claims.
(A reminder that I’ve been a vegetarian for 40 years and a vegan for a decade-plus, so I’m normatively sympathetic to Woman Freethinker’s trigger. However not on the expense of Part 230!)
For those who’re comparatively new to Web Legislation, Woman Freethinker’s arguments might sound like a intelligent authorized method. If YouTube goes out of its technique to expressly ban animal abuse in its TOS, shouldn’t or not it’s answerable for not implementing that self-adopted ban? Nevertheless, for those who’re an old-timer like me, you’ll acknowledge how this precise argument was tried–and failed–in Noah v. AOL from 2003, a case I nonetheless embody in my Web Legislation casebook. (Identical factor with the Lori Drew prosecution from 2009). The underlying authorized rules usually are not difficult: content material guidelines in TOSes are destructive behavioral restrictions on authors’ conduct, not advertising and marketing or contractual guarantees to readers that such content material won’t ever seem on the location. It was a simple dismissal in Noah, and it stays a simple dismissal now. (I’m ignoring the complicating results of varied social media censorship legal guidelines that will require Web companies to implement their TOSes as written, a requirement I feel is unconstitutional).
Fairly than participating this contract legislation difficulty immediately, the court docket guidelines for YouTube on Part 230 grounds:
Woman Freethinker’s claims in the end search to deal with Google because the writer or speaker of content material offered by one other data content material supplier. Each the breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of fine religion and honest dealing causes of motion, as an illustration, are predicated on YouTube “permitting a whole lot of animal abuse movies.” Equally, the causes of motion for violation of the False Promoting Legislation and the Unfair Competitors Legislation are premised, respectively, on Google’s “false misrepresentation that it could not permit animal abuse movies,” and its “fraudulent enterprise acts or practices by deceptively promoting and holding out its platform as one the place excessive and gratuitous animal abuse is not going to be allowed.”
Google’s actions permitting the animal abuse movies to be proven on YouTube thus fall squarely inside the scope of a writer’s conventional editorial capabilities—deciding whether or not to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content material….Google’s actions in permitting the animal abuse movies to be proven and failing to take away them quantity to publishing choices to not forestall or take away the movies—that’s, “ ‘deciding whether or not to exclude materials that third events search to submit on-line.’ ”
To get round this, Woman Freethinker argued that Part 230 doesn’t apply to contract breach claims. Certainly, the court docket agrees that “part 230 doesn’t essentially present immunity for all contract-based causes of motion.” Discussing the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Barnes, the court docket says “quite a few courts have acknowledged the restricted scope of its holding on this difficulty and have rejected makes an attempt to evade part 230 legal responsibility by asserting distinguishable contract-based causes of motion.” [Discussing Cross v. Facebook, Murphy v. Twitter, Prager v. YouTube, and Wozniak v. YouTube]
Thus, styling a declare as “breach of contract” doesn’t robotically get round Part 230:
merely as a result of a reason behind motion is framed and labeled as a breach of contract or associated declare doesn’t take away it from the scope of part 230 immunity. As a substitute, a court docket should consider a reason behind motion to find out whether or not it seeks to deal with an interactive laptop service as a writer or speaker of third-party data. Which will embody assessing what a plaintiff’s declare “quantities to” or figuring out the gravamen of a grievance and the character of the alleged injurious conduct, however the plaintiff’s labels and characterization of its personal causes of motion. It could additionally embody assessing the sufficiency of a reason behind motion as pleaded from a contract standpoint, together with whether or not it’s based mostly on normal insurance policies or a private, well-defined, enforceable promise
The court docket says that Cross and Murphy govern this case:
In all three instances, the breach of contract claims alleged that the defendants didn’t adjust to their very own normal phrases of service, however the claims in the end have been predicated on conventional editorial choices relating to third-party content material…. right here, YouTube’s and Google’s failure to forestall and take away the animal abuse movies allegedly violated their phrases of service and group pointers.
In all three instances, the defendants’ actions that gave rise to the allegedly injurious habits constituted conventional editorial capabilities resembling deciding whether or not to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content material, the sort barred by part 230
As a last-ditch argument, Woman Freethinker argued {that a} permissive interpretation of Part 230 would permit YouTube…to be YouTube?
Woman Freethinker argues that discovering part 230 immunity right here would successfully present YouTube “blanket immunity only for being YouTube—simply because the character of its enterprise is certain up with content material posted on the web.”
This seems like a reasonably good argument in favor of Part 230!
* * *
This case was filed in October 2021, earlier than the newest flood of complaints urging Part 230 workarounds for negligent design claims. It’s not onerous to think about how a negligent design declare might have been structured right here. First, the plaintiff might have argued that YouTube’s design encourages the manufacturing and viewing of unlawful animal abuse movies. Second, the plaintiff might have alleged that YouTube’s design exposes viewers to unlawful content material that causes emotional and psychological misery to animal rights activist viewers. Notice how these recapitulations are the identical primary arguments that Woman Freethinker tried, simply framed in a tort method moderately than a contract method. So a negligent design workaround to Part 230 would clearly authorize instances that we expect at the moment are preempted.
To be clear, I don’t assume both argument ought to work, however it could have had extra fashionable resonance than the breach of contract workaround to Part 230, which after Murphy actually by no means had any actual probability of success. As a result of the plaintiff on this case got here in with an old-school authorized principle that bought swatted down as anticipated, I worry this presumably will probably be one of many final nice Part 230 opinions from the California Appeals Courtroom. Going ahead, it’s going to be negligent design workarounds on a regular basis, with the likelihood that these arguments succeed and Part 230 turns into functionally a dead-letter.
Case quotation: Freethinker v. Google LLC, 2024 WL 2809371 (Cal. App. Ct. June 3, 2024)