Mishiyev v. Youtube LLC

Background

Erik Mishiyev began the action in Florida state court on October 17, 2024. Defendants removed it to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on November 18, 2024. Mishiyev alleged that YouTube removed videos from his channels after allegedly fraudulent copyright-infringement complaints. He also alleged that YouTube diverted views to his page, failed to notify subscribers about new videos, stopped his advertising revenue, and eventually terminated his channel.

The complaint asserted claims for intentional interference with business relations and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Florida common law, violation of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and misrepresentation under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f). Defendants moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), relying on a forum-selection clause in YouTube’s Terms of Service. A forum-selection clause is a contract term identifying where disputes must be litigated.

Court’s analysis

The Terms of Service in effect when Mishiyev filed suit provided that claims arising out of or relating to the Terms or the YouTube service would be governed by California law and litigated exclusively in federal or state courts in Santa Clara County, California. The court noted that Mishiyev did not dispute that he agreed to the Terms of Service or that the forum-selection clause was valid and enforceable.

The court concluded that the clause covered Mishiyev’s claims because they related to YouTube’s removal of content from his channels and termination of his accounts. The Terms of Service reserved YouTube’s right to remove content that breached the agreement or could harm YouTube, users, or third parties. The court also noted that the Terms incorporated YouTube’s copyright and other policies and that Mishiyev’s complaint alleged YouTube had not followed its own terms and copyright policies.

Under Section 1404(a), the court may transfer a civil action for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. When an enforceable forum-selection clause applies, the clause generally receives controlling weight unless extraordinary circumstances unrelated to convenience clearly disfavor transfer. The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that public-interest factors overwhelmingly favor the original forum.

Mishiyev argued that the case should remain in Florida because it involved Florida law, he was injured there, and transfer would cause him hardship. The court found that he had not shown administrative difficulties from transfer. It also determined that the dispute was not a localized Florida controversy because it concerned YouTube’s nationwide enforcement of its Terms of Service and copyright-related policies. Finally, the court was not persuaded that Florida was the forum most at home with the law involved.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Defendants’ Motion to Transfer to the Northern District of California. It directed the clerk to transfer the case to that district. The order decided where the case would proceed; it did not decide the merits of Mishiyev’s claims.