Sidoli

Sidoli v. Youtube, LLC

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 6, 20253:25-cv-05038California394 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NATALIYA SIDOLI,

Plaintiff, 25-cv-1586 (AS) -against-

YOUTUBE, LLC and GOOGLE, LLC, ORDER Defendants.

ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Nataliya Sidoli alleges that defendants YouTube and Google discriminated against her when they removed her YouTube channel, which contains videos of her “yoga art and stretching art,” while permitting (and promoting) channels that impersonate her. Dkt. 33 at 5. Defendants say that YouTube took Sidoli’s channel down because the channel “violated [YouTube’s] policy against sexual content and nudity.” Dkt. 41 at 1. Defendants move to transfer the case to the Northern District of California or, in the alternative, dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the motion to transfer is GRANTED. When Sidoli created her YouTube channel, she agreed to YouTube’s terms of service. Dkt. 42 ¶ 8. The terms of service contain a forum-selection clause, providing that all disputes between YouTube and its users arising out of “these terms or the Service . . . will be litigated in Santa Clara County, California, USA.” Id.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.