Unknown Party v. Google LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNKNOWN PARTIES, Case No. 23-cv-05523-VC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

v. DISMISS

GOOGLE LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 112 Defendants.

YouTube’s motion to dismiss is granted. This order assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts, the applicable legal standard, and the arguments made by the parties. All the plaintiffs’ claims against YouTube are controlled by Section 230, which shields websites from liability for content created and posted by third parties. See 47 U.S.C.A. § 230(c)(1); see also Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2016). The plaintiffs’ arguments against the applicability of Section 230 are unpersuasive. First, it is clear from the complaint and the plaintiffs’ theory of liability that they seek to treat YouTube as a publisher or speaker of third-party content. The plaintiffs allege that Onision “ran several YouTube channels” that “targeted minor audiences” and allowed Onision to “groom and lure underage girls.” According to the plaintiffs, YouTube is liable because it provided a platform for Onision to reach young…