Enhanced Athlete Inc. v. Google LLC

Background

Enhanced Athlete alleged that it posted informational and educational personal-fitness and well-being videos on two YouTube channels. Before the accounts were terminated, it had posted nearly 200 videos and had about 145,000 subscribers. Enhanced Athlete said that some videos concerned selective androgen receptor modulators, which the opinion states were not regulated and had not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for human consumption.

Enhanced Athlete alleged that Google LLC and YouTube, LLC removed videos and permanently terminated its channels after treating the videos as promoting violent or dangerous acts. It also alleged that the defendants applied arbitrary advertiser-friendly standards, gave vague explanations, and counted videos that Enhanced Athlete had deleted. The complaint asserted claims for California unfair competition, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and declaratory relief.

The defendants moved to dismiss the entire complaint. They argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred the claims and, alternatively, that the complaint failed to state a legally sufficient claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Section 230 analysis

The court held that Section 230(c)(1) barred the unfair-competition, false-advertising, and declaratory-relief claims. The court found that Google and YouTube were providers of an interactive computer service, that the videos were information provided by another content provider, and that the challenged claims sought to hold the defendants responsible as publishers for removing content and terminating accounts.

The court held that Section 230(c)(1) did not bar the implied-covenant claim because that claim was based on the parties’ alleged agreement, including YouTube’s Terms of Use and Community Guidelines, rather than solely on the defendants’ role as publishers. The court also found that Enhanced Athlete had alleged enough facts to support an allegation that the defendants acted in bad faith, so it would not dismiss that claim under Section 230(c)(2) at that stage.

Rule 12(b)(6) analysis

The court then considered whether the implied-covenant claim was legally sufficient. It treated the Terms of Use and Community Guidelines as part of the complaint because the complaint relied on them and Enhanced Athlete did not dispute their authenticity.

The court found that those agreements gave the defendants the right, in their sole discretion, to decide whether content violated the terms, remove content, terminate an account for violating the terms, and discontinue any aspect of the service at any time. Because the agreements authorized the defendants’ actions, the court concluded that Enhanced Athlete failed to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Disposition

Judge Gilliam granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The court dismissed with prejudice the claims for California unfair competition, Lanham Act false advertising, and declaratory relief. It dismissed the remaining implied-covenant claim with leave to amend. Enhanced Athlete was given 21 days to file an amended complaint consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, and it could not add defendants or new claims.