A nonprofit organization has taken legal action against a tech giant, alleging breach of contract and violations of state laws. Lady Freethinker filed the complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court on October 18, 2021, accusing Google LLC of allowing animal abuse videos to be shown on YouTube despite promises to prohibit such content.
According to the filing, YouTube's terms of service explicitly state that videos depicting animal abuse are not allowed on its platform. Lady Freethinker claims that by accepting these terms, it entered into a contractual agreement with Google LLC. The nonprofit argues that Google breached this contract by permitting over 2,000 videos showcasing animal abuse, torture, and cruelty to remain accessible on YouTube. "The animal abuse videos shown on YouTube include forced predatory interactions in which young animals are purposely tortured," the complaint states. Lady Freethinker contends that these actions have caused reputational and financial damage to the organization.
Google successfully demurred the initial complaint on grounds that it was protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. This law provides immunity to interactive computer services from being treated as publishers or speakers of third-party content. The trial court sustained Google's demurrer but granted Lady Freethinker leave to amend its complaint. However, even after amendments were made, the court once again sided with Google, stating that the essence of Lady Freethinker's claims still sought to hold Google liable as a publisher or speaker of third-party information.
Lady Freethinker appealed this decision, arguing that their claims derive from Google's contractual obligations rather than its role as a publisher or speaker. The nonprofit asserts that Google's liability stems from specific promises made in its terms of service and community guidelines, which assured users that animal abuse content would not be permitted on YouTube. Despite these assurances, Lady Freethinker identified more than 100 channels with tens of millions of subscribers showing explicit animal abuse videos.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling, agreeing that Section 230 immunity applies because Lady Freethinker's claims ultimately treat Google as a publisher or speaker of third-party content. "Although framed as contract-based causes of action," the court noted, "these claims seek to hold Google liable for failing to remove harmful third-party content." The judgment emphasized that Section 230 protects interactive computer services from lawsuits seeking to impose liability for their editorial decisions regarding third-party content.
Lady Freethinker sought various forms of relief including damages for breach of contract and violations under California's False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law. However, due to Section 230 immunity provisions, these claims were dismissed without leave for further amendment.
The case was presided over by Judges Wilson, Greenwood (P.J.), and Danner in the Sixth Appellate District Court under Case ID H050875.