For the most part, this is a simple § 230 (c) (1) discharge. The court uses the standard three-part test:
ICS provider: The plaintiff did not deny this, "and neither could it." "YouTube and Google easily fall under that definition."
Third-party content: Following the Sikhs for Justice case, the court states that the plaintiff's videos are third-party content for YouTube.
Editor / Spokesperson Allegations: "Plaintiff objects to Defendant's decision to remove plaintiff's videos and terminate his accounts. "Removing content is something that publishers do, and in order to impose liability on the basis of such conduct, the liable party must necessarily be treated as a publisher." (Quote Barnes). This eliminates the Unfair Competition Claim of 17200 and the Lanham Act false advertising allegation (not indicative of the Enigma v Malwarebytes of the 9th Circuit decision, although this directly applies to the application of Section 230 to Lanham Act false advertising ).
At this point in the opinion, the only remaining claim is the implicit contract of good faith and fair dealing, so the court will evaluate other defenses against this claim.
Section 230 (c) (2)
As the court summarized, "Section 230 (c) (2) … provides the defendants with immunity from" police content "provided they do so in good faith." The plaintiff cited various (unconvincing) reasons why YouTube was terminated Account was not made in good faith and the court said it would have to accept these allegations as true on a motion to dismiss. Another example of why section 230 (c) (1) has far surpassed the meaning of section 230 (c) (2).
Merits of the implied covenant of good faith and the right to fair treatment
Once we have the merits of the good faith / fair trade claim, the court has no problem destroying it (citing Song Fi v. Google):
However, the court dismissed the lawsuit unscathed and gave the plaintiff one more chance to rally in support of this lawsuit. It is guaranteed to fail, but the plaintiff will try anyway and then challenge his loss on the Ninth Circuit.
Case Quote: Enhanced Athlete, Inc. v Google LLC, Case No. 19-cv-08260-HSG (N.D. Cal. August 14, 2020)