Daniels v. Alphabet Inc.

Background

Marshall Daniels operated a YouTube channel featuring videos about politics, race, public health, spirituality, and economics. He alleged that YouTube removed at least two videos in spring 2020 and withheld money that viewers had donated through YouTube’s SuperChat feature. SuperChat allows viewers to pay content creators during livestreams.

In an earlier order, the court dismissed Daniels’s breach-of-contract claim for several reasons but allowed him to amend that claim. The court had found that YouTube’s Terms of Service did not require advance notice or a particular appeals process, allowed YouTube to remove content at its discretion, and did not contain an agreement to pay users based on SuperChat views or donations. The court noted that Daniels might be able to plead a claim based on a different agreement, such as the YouTube Partner Program agreement.

Daniels filed a first amended complaint. He clarified in opposition to the motion that his amended contract claim concerned money he said he had already earned, not YouTube’s decisions to remove his videos. But the amended claim continued to rely only on YouTube’s Terms of Service. Daniels acknowledged that those terms did not mention SuperChat, while arguing that YouTube’s separate SuperChat policies were incorporated into or governed by the terms.

Court’s analysis

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally sufficient claim. They also invoked Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act and asked the court to strike claims that the earlier order had not authorized Daniels to amend.

The court held that the amended complaint did not state a breach-of-contract claim. Daniels relied on a document titled “YouTube Partner Program overview & eligibility,” which said YouTube may disable monetization for channels that had not uploaded a video or posted to the Community tab for six months or more. The court found that this statement did not refer to SuperChat and did not promise that six months of dormancy was the only circumstance in which monetization could be disabled. The court therefore found Daniels’s alleged promise to pay SuperChat donations implausible and concluded that he had not identified any contractual obligation defendants breached.

Because Daniels limited the amended claim to money allegedly withheld from him, rather than decisions to remove content, the court found it unnecessary to decide whether Section 230(c) immunity barred the claim.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. It also granted defendants’ request under Rule 12(f) to strike from the amended complaint all claims for relief other than the breach-of-contract claim, because the earlier order had authorized amendment only of that claim. The opinion states that Daniels did not suggest any way he could further amend the contract claim, but the quoted conclusion does not add a separate “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation to this dismissal. The opinion also states that Daniels had acknowledged that the court previously dismissed his non-contract claims with prejudice.

The order was signed by Virginia K. Demarchi, United States Magistrate Judge, on July 8, 2021.