Sidoli v. Youtube, LLC
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-01586
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sidoli v. YouTube, LLC, Judge Subramanian transferred the case to California because YouTube’s forum-selection clause required disputes to be litigated there.
Nataliya Sidoli and defendants YouTube, LLC and Google, LLC are affected because the case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of California; the order did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Sidoli v. YouTube, LLC, Nataliya Sidoli alleges that YouTube and Google discriminated against her by removing her channel, which featured videos of her “yoga art and stretching art,” while allowing channels that impersonated her. The defendants said YouTube removed the channel for violating its policy against sexual content and nudity.
The defendants asked the court to transfer the case to the Northern District of California or, alternatively, dismiss it for failure to state a claim. The court found that Sidoli had agreed to YouTube’s terms of service, which required disputes arising from the terms or service to be litigated in Santa Clara County, California. The court found no extraordinary circumstances that would justify disregarding that clause.
Judge Arun Subramanian granted the motion to transfer and directed the Clerk of Court to send the case to the Northern District of California. The order did not decide whether Sidoli’s claims were legally sufficient, and it did not rule on the alternative request for dismissal.
The detailed version
- Sidoli v. Youtube, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-01586
- Subramanian
- June 6, 2025
Background
Nataliya Sidoli sued YouTube, LLC and Google, LLC. She alleges that the defendants discriminated against her when YouTube removed her channel, which contained videos of her “yoga art and stretching art,” while permitting and promoting channels that impersonated her. The defendants contend that YouTube removed the channel because it violated YouTube’s policy against sexual content and nudity. Sidoli also amended her complaint to allege that YouTube acted at the request of the Pakistani government.
When Sidoli created her YouTube channel, she agreed to YouTube’s terms of service. Those terms included a forum-selection clause, meaning a contract provision identifying where disputes must be litigated. The clause stated that disputes between YouTube and its users arising from the terms or the service would be litigated in Santa Clara County, California.
Motion and Analysis
The defendants moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. They alternatively sought dismissal for failure to state a claim, which means they argued that the complaint did not allege a legally sufficient claim. The court did not reach that alternative dismissal request.
The court concluded that Sidoli’s claims plainly arose from YouTube’s terms because she challenged YouTube’s demonetization of her videos and removal of her channel. The court explained that a forum-selection clause may be enforced through a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and generally controls unless exceptional circumstances exist. The court found no extraordinary circumstances here. It also determined that Sidoli’s allegation about action requested by the Pakistani government did not change the nature of her claims for purposes of the forum-selection clause.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to transfer. It directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The order did not decide the merits of Sidoli’s discrimination allegations or whether her complaint stated a claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.