Reale v. Google LLC

Background

Reale’s second amended complaint included a claim under section 2 of the Sherman Act, the federal law prohibiting certain monopolization, and a state-law claim. The opinion concerns the removal of two of Reale’s videos from YouTube because they allegedly violated YouTube’s Terms of Service.

Ruling on the Federal Claim

The court granted the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. It dismissed Reale’s section 2 monopolization claim because he did not allege an antitrust injury caused by anticompetitive conduct. The court held that removing the videos for violating YouTube’s Terms of Service was not anticompetitive conduct. It also held that any injury from the removal was not the type antitrust laws were intended to prevent because Reale was not a competitor of YouTube and was not overcharged for goods or services.

The court dismissed the monopolization claim without leave to amend. It stated that Reale had twice failed to adequately state the claim and that further amendment would be futile because he could not allege that removing the two videos was anticompetitive or harmed competition in any market.

Remaining State-Law Claim

After dismissing the federal claim, the court again declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims, over the remaining state-law claim. The court cited the case’s early stage and concerns about comity, fairness, convenience, and judicial economy.

Disposition

Judge Chhabria granted the motion to dismiss, dismissed the federal monopolization claim without leave to amend, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim.