Finley v. YouTube, LLC

Background

LaTonya R. Finley sued YouTube after YouTube removed one of her videos after receiving notice of a copyright violation. Finley initially claimed that YouTube failed to provide information required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 512. The court had dismissed that complaint because the cited DMCA provision creates statutory safe harbors for websites rather than a cause of action.

Finley amended her complaint. She relabeled the DMCA theory as a copyright claim and added claims for breach of contract and tortious interference. YouTube moved to dismiss. The court decided the motion without oral argument under Local Rule 7-1(b).

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Finley’s first claim still described the same defective DMCA theory. The DMCA’s safe-harbor provisions protect websites from suits by copyright owners; they do not allow a person accused of violating someone else’s copyright to sue the website over the procedures used to remove material, even if the person believes the website did not comply with the safe-harbor requirements. The court also stated that the information Finley said she was not given was information that the copyright holder—not Finley—was required to provide to YouTube. In addition, Finley did not allege that YouTube violated a copyright that she owned. The court therefore dismissed this claim.

The court found that Finley’s breach-of-contract claim lacked specific facts identifying the contract YouTube allegedly breached, explaining how YouTube breached it, or adequately alleging damages. General complaints about how YouTube operates—including control over who can see creators’ content and nondisclosure of how creator revenue is calculated—did not state the required elements of a contract claim with specific, plausible facts. The court dismissed this claim as well.

The court also found Finley’s tortious-interference claim legally defective. Finley alleged that YouTube interfered with a contract between YouTube and Finley. The court explained that tortious interference can potentially apply when a defendant interferes with a contract between the plaintiff and a third party, giving a contract between Finley and Facebook as an example.

Disposition

The court granted YouTube’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Finley’s amended complaint. It dismissed the DMCA-related copyright claim and the tortious-interference claim with prejudice because further amendment could not save them. It also dismissed the breach-of-contract claim with prejudice. The court stated that amendment appeared futile on the facts alleged and that Finley had not addressed the contract claim in her opposition except to mention that it existed; the court therefore deemed her to have admitted that the claim could not be defended. The clerk was directed to close the case.