James Domen v. Vimeo, Inc.

Background

James Domen and Church United created a Vimeo account in about October 2016 and used it to publish approximately 89 videos, including videos addressing sexual orientation as it relates to religion. Domen was alleged to be Church United’s president and founder. Vimeo removed the account in December 2018 after warning that it did not allow videos promoting Sexual Orientation Change Efforts, and later stating that the account violated guidelines against harassing, hateful, discriminatory, or defamatory speech.

The plaintiffs alleged that Vimeo restricted and censored their videos because of their viewpoint about sexual orientation and religion. Their First Amended Complaint asserted claims under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, New York’s Human Rights Law, and the California Constitution’s free-speech provision. The original complaint had included a claim under the First Amendment, but the plaintiffs did not include that claim in the amended complaint.

Motion to Dismiss

Vimeo moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally valid claim. The court accepted the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion, but did not accept legal conclusions or unsupported assertions.

Section 230 Immunity and Preemption

The court held that Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act protected Vimeo under both of the provisions it considered. Section 230(c)(1) generally prevents treating an interactive computer service as the publisher or speaker of information supplied by another content provider. The court concluded that removing or withdrawing the plaintiffs’ videos was a publisher function, so Vimeo could not be held liable for that decision under Section 230(c)(1).

The court also held that Section 230(c)(2) independently protected Vimeo’s actions. That provision protects voluntary, good-faith decisions by an interactive computer service to restrict access to material the provider considers objectionable. The court found that the complaint and incorporated documents showed Vimeo considered videos promoting Sexual Orientation Change Efforts objectionable. It further held that the plaintiffs’ allegation that Vimeo acted in bad faith was conclusory and lacked supporting facts.

The court then held that Section 230 expressly preempted the plaintiffs’ state-law claims. “Preemption” means that federal law overrides a conflicting state-law claim. The court ruled that the California Unruh Act and New York Human Rights Law claims were not among the types of claims exempted from Section 230 and were inconsistent with its protections. The court also held that the California Constitution claim was preempted because it conflicted with Section 230.

Alternative Grounds

The court stated that, even if Section 230 did not preempt the first two claims, those claims would still be dismissed because the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that Vimeo acted with discriminatory intent based on Domen’s sexual orientation or religion. Vimeo’s emails indicated that it removed the account because of the videos’ content.

The court also stated that the California Constitution claim would fail independently. Although California’s free-speech provision can apply to private actors in limited circumstances, the court held that Vimeo was not a state actor and that its website was not equivalent to a California shopping center covered by the cited precedent. The court noted that alternative avenues of communication existed.

The court did not reach Vimeo’s argument that the plaintiffs’ claims violated Vimeo’s own First Amendment rights because it dismissed the claims on other grounds.

Disposition

The court granted Vimeo’s motion to dismiss, denied the plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend because amendment would be futile, and dismissed the case with prejudice. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and close the case.