Sidoli v. Youtube, LLC

Background

Nataliya Sidoli alleged that YouTube and Google discriminated against her by removing her YouTube channel, which contained videos she described as “yoga art and stretching art,” while permitting and promoting channels that impersonated her. The defendants stated that YouTube removed the channel because it violated the company’s policy against sexual content and nudity. Sidoli also alleged that YouTube acted at the request of the Pakistani government, but the court said that allegation did not change the nature of her claims.

When Sidoli created her channel, she agreed to YouTube’s terms of service. Those terms included a forum-selection clause—a contract provision identifying where disputes must be litigated. The clause required disputes between YouTube and its users arising from the terms or the service to be litigated in Santa Clara County, California.

Motion and analysis

The defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. They alternatively sought dismissal for failure to state a claim. 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 generally receives controlling weight in transfer decisions unless exceptional circumstances exist. It found no extraordinary circumstances here and held that the clause controlled. The court therefore did not decide the alternative motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to transfer. It directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. Arun Subramanian, United States District Judge, signed the order on June 6, 2025.