Sosa v. AT&T

Background

Andrew Sosa posted a video review of a Batman movie on YouTube. He alleged that Warner Brothers issued a false copyright takedown notice, causing YouTube to remove the video. Warner Brothers later withdrew the notice. Sosa alleged that YouTube did not promptly or reasonably restore the video and did not return it to the same position or priority it would have had without the removal.

Sosa asserted two claims against Warner Brothers: a claim under section 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for knowingly making a material misrepresentation in a copyright takedown notice, and a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law. He asserted a separate Unfair Competition Law claim against YouTube based on YouTube’s handling of the takedown notice, Sosa’s response, the restoration of the video, and the video’s ranking.

YouTube’s Motion

The court applied the Rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard, which requires enough factual allegations to make a claim legally plausible. It held that Sosa’s state-law claim against YouTube was preempted because it was based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown process. The court also held that YouTube was protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for decisions about removing, restoring, and ranking third-party content. In addition, the court stated that Sosa sought only monetary relief under the state law and had not alleged that he paid money to YouTube that could be returned as restitution.

The court granted YouTube’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the sole claim against YouTube without leave to amend.

Warner Brothers’ Motion

The court dismissed Sosa’s Unfair Competition Law claim against Warner Brothers without leave to amend. It reasoned that the claim was based on Warner Brothers’ copyright takedown notice and was therefore preempted. Because that was the only state-law claim against Warner Brothers, the court did not address Warner Brothers’ separate motion to strike under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute.

The court also dismissed Sosa’s section 512(f) claim, but with leave to amend. The court explained that such a claim requires allegations of a material misrepresentation in a takedown notice that caused a removal, along with allegations that the notice was submitted in subjective bad faith. Sosa alleged that his video either used no Warner Brothers copyrighted material or made an obviously fair use, and that Warner Brothers issued the notice because of spoilers rather than infringement.

The court found that the complaint did not provide enough facts showing what Warner Brothers knew when it issued the notice. The parties had not supplied the actual takedown notice or established what copyrighted material the notice identified. The court also found that a later communication concerning spoilers did not plausibly show that Warner Brothers knew the notice was false when it was issued. The court nevertheless allowed amendment because additional contemporaneous communications or facts about Warner Brothers’ process for evaluating fair use and identifying infringement might support the claim.

Disposition

YouTube’s motion to dismiss was GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Sosa’s Unfair Competition Law claim against Warner Brothers was DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Sosa’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act claim against Warner Brothers was DISMISSED with leave to amend. The court gave Sosa one last attempt to state an actionable section 512(f) claim, with any further amended complaint due within 20 days of the order.