Newman v. Google LLC

Background

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint against Google LLC and other defendants concerning YouTube. The complaint asserted federal and state-law claims, including claims under the First Amendment, the Lanham Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, California law, and the federal Class Action Fairness Act. The court said the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded jurisdiction under that Act, so it considered the state-law claims for the first time.

The plaintiffs added allegations about a September 2017 meeting with content creators, the book Algorithms of Oppression, and a comparison chart involving 33 restricted videos and videos by white non-Hispanic creators. The complaint was more than 200 pages and included more than 2,500 pages of exhibits.

Ruling on Federal Claims

The court granted the motion to dismiss the federal claims without leave to amend. It concluded that the plaintiffs had not added allegations of consequence and that further amendment would be futile. The First Amendment and Lanham Act claims failed for the same legal reasons identified in Judge Koh’s earlier ruling. The court also declined to exercise jurisdiction over the declaratory-judgment claim for the reasons stated in that earlier opinion.

The court did not decide the difficult questions concerning an affirmative defense because it did not need to do so.

The court also dismissed the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which prohibits intentional race discrimination in making and enforcing contracts, without allowing another amendment. It held that the plaintiffs still had not plausibly alleged that YouTube intentionally discriminated against them because of race. The additional allegations did not change that conclusion.

Ruling on State Claims

The court dismissed all of the state-law claims, granting leave to amend some and denying leave to amend others.

The breach-of-contract claims, Claims 5 and 6, were dismissed with leave to amend. The court said the claims might be capable of meeting the requirement that a complaint contain a plausible claim, but the complaint did not identify which of at least five attached YouTube contracts applied or clearly state the specific contract term allegedly violated.

The conversion claim, Claim 10, and the replevin claim, Claim 11, were dismissed with leave to amend because they depended on the contract and conversion claims, respectively.

The promissory-estoppel claim, Claim 7, was dismissed without leave to amend because the plaintiffs did not defend it in their opposition brief. The Unruh Act claim, Claim 12, was dismissed without leave to amend because the court viewed it as functionally identical to the § 1981 claim and rejected it for the same reasons.

The unfair competition claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Claim 8, was dismissed with leave to amend. The court found deficiencies in the plaintiffs’ theories based on alleged unlawful practices, unfair practices, and misleading statements. It also noted that the plaintiffs did not respond to arguments that they had not plausibly alleged an emerging antitrust violation or conduct that significantly harmed competition, and had not adequately alleged justifiable reliance on a misleading statement.

The claim for an equitable accounting of debts owed under contract, Claim 9, was dismissed with leave to amend. The court held that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that they lacked an adequate legal remedy. Not knowing the precise amount allegedly owed did not, by itself, show that a breach-of-contract claim would be inadequate. If the plaintiffs pursued this claim again, the court required them to explain why a contract claim was unavailable or inadequate.

The California Liberty of Speech claim, Claim 13, was dismissed without leave to amend. The court explained that although California’s constitutional speech protection can reach beyond the federal First Amendment, the relevant California cases concerned certain physical properties. The court said applying that doctrine to the Internet would be a dramatic expansion of California law and concluded that further amendment would be futile.

Order and Effect

The motion to dismiss was granted. The federal claims were dismissed without leave to amend. The state-law claims were dismissed, with leave to amend for Claims 5, 6, 10, 11, 8, and 9, and without leave to amend for Claims 7, 12, and 13. If the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint, the court required it to be no longer than 70 pages, to clearly state non-frivolous claims, and to include only necessary exhibits. The court warned that a complaint violating those requirements would be dismissed for that reason alone.