Albertson v. Google, LLC

Background

Timothy-Allen Albertson alleged that YouTube blocked or partly blocked some comments he posted, including by removing them from some areas of the service or reducing their visibility. He alleged that YouTube took these actions under its prohibition on hate speech. Albertson brought two First Amendment claims against Google LLC, doing business as YouTube, for alleged violations of his rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.

Google moved to dismiss the claims. It argued that the claims failed because Google is a private entity and not a state actor, meaning an entity whose conduct can legally be treated as government conduct for purposes of the First Amendment. Google also argued that the claims were barred by the First Amendment.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that the First Amendment generally restricts government conduct, not a private company’s decisions about speech. The court considered three theories under which a private entity might be treated as a state actor: performing a public function, acting jointly with the government, or having a sufficiently close connection with the government.

The court rejected the public-function theory because Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent establishes that hosting other people’s speech does not by itself make a private platform a government actor. The court also rejected Albertson’s joint-action and government-connection theories. Albertson relied on congressional investigations of Google and alleged that Google allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to censor or suppress speech, but the court found no factual link between those allegations and YouTube’s decisions about Albertson’s comments. The court also found that Albertson’s allegation that Google acted with the Executive Branch was conclusory and lacked allegations of an agreement or coordinated action.

Disposition

The court concluded that Albertson had not adequately alleged that Google was a state actor. It therefore held that Google could not be held responsible under the First Amendment for removing or blocking Albertson’s YouTube comments. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted Google’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court gave Albertson until March 8, 2024, to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies. It stated that he could not add new causes of action or parties without court permission or the parties’ agreement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.