Haocheng v. Youtube Inc.

1

QIAN HAOCHENG, Plaintiff, v. YOUTUBE, INC., AND GOOGLE, INC., Defendants.

No. 3:23-cv-00513 (SVN)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

March 28, 2024

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SARALA V. NAGALA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Qian Haocheng, proceeding pro se, brings claims for breach of contract against Defendant YouTube, Inc., and its parent company Defendant Google, Inc., after YouTube removed his video content from the platform. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the applicable Terms of Service, which the Court converted to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d). For the following reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND^[1]

Plaintiff is a Chinese dissident who lives in Connecticut and operated seven YouTube channels about politics, faith, and science and technology, from approximately May 26, 2020, through at least May of 2023. See Haocheng Affirm., ECF No. 44 ¶¶ 2-3; Am. Compl., ECF No. 29 ¶¶ 14(1) 17.

Plaintiff operated the YouTube channels pursuant to YouTube's Terms of Service. ECF No. 44 ¶ 4; Am. Compl. ¶ 7. The relevant provision, titled “Removal of Content by YouTube,” provides that:

If any of your Content (1) is in breach of this Agreement or (2) may cause harm to YouTube, our users, or third parties we reserve the right to remove or take down some or all of such Content in our discretion. We will notify you with the reason for our action unless we reasonably believe that to do so: (a) would breach the law or the direction of a legal enforcement authority or would otherwise risk legal liability for YouTube or our Affiliates; (b) would compromise an investigation or the integrity or operation of the Service; or (c) would cause harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates.

Defs.' Ex. D, YouTube Terms of Service, ECF No. 41-5 at 11; ECF No. 44 ¶ 5 (stating that Defendants' Exhibit D reflects the valid terms from January 4, 2022, to present); see also Defs.' Ex. A through Ex. C, ECF No. 41-2 through 41-4 (YouTube's Terms of Service containing an identical provision from December 19, 2019, through present). The YouTube Terms of Service expressly incorporate YouTube's Community Guidelines, which provide further that:

If our reviewers decide that content violates our Community Guidelines, we remove the content and send a notice to the Creator. The first time a Creator violates our Community Guidelines, they receive a warning with no penalty to the channel. After one warning, we'll issue a Community Guidelines strike to the channel and the account will have temporary restrictions. Channels that receive three strikes within a 90-day period will be terminated. Channels that are dedicated to violating our policies or that have a single case of severe abuse of the platform, will bypass our strikes system and be terminated. All strikes and terminations can be appealed if the Creator believes there was an error, and our teams will re-review the decision.

Defs.' Ex. E, YouTube Community Guidelines, ECF No. 41-6 at 4 (in effect from 2020 to November 2022); ECF No. 41-5 at 5 (“Your use of the Service is subject to these terms, the YouTube Community Guidelines, and the Policy, Safety and Copyright Policies.”); see also Defs.' Ex. F, YouTube Community Guidelines, ECF No. 41-7 at 5 (containing near identical provision in effect from November 2022 to May 2023).

Plaintiff also operated as a YouTube “partner,” which allows users to profit from videos posted on the platform. The relevant “Right to Monetize” provision in the YouTube Terms of Service states that: “[y]ou grant to YouTube the right to monetize your Content on the Service” and “[t]his Agreement does not entitle you to any payments”; nonetheless, pursuant to the YouTube Partner Program, the user may be entitled to payments that are “treated as royalties.” ECF No. 41-5 at 10; see also ECF No. 41-3 through 41-4 (containing an identical provision from November 18, 2020, through present); ECF No. 41-2 at 11 (prior provision stating that users “grant to YouTube a world-wide, non-exclusive, royalty free” license).

Plaintiff alleges that on January 24, 2022, his Google account was hacked by the Chinese Communist Party (“CCP”). Am. Compl. ¶ 9. On February 26, 2022, Plaintiff received an email from “yt-partner-support@google.com” stating “our insiders determined that your account had unusual activity (compromised)”; that “the internal team has disabled your Google account”; and that Plaintiff would need to take steps to verify his identify and recover his account. Pl.'s Ex. 2, Feb. 16, 2022, Email, ECF No. 44-2 at 2.^[2]Plaintiff claims that, as a result, added restrictions were placed on his account. Am. Compl. ¶ 10.

Later that year, on December 13, 2022, Plaintiff received an email from YouTube that his “Enlightenment Hall (Member Channel)” was no longer eligible to monetize. Pl.'s Ex. 7, Dec. 13, 2022, Email, ECF No. 44-7 at 2-4. The email stated:

Hi Enlightenment Hall (Member Channel),

During a recent review, our team of policy specialists carefully looked over the videos you've uploaded . . . We found that a significant portion of your channel is not in line with our YouTube Partner Program policies. As of today, your channel is not eligible to monetize and you will not have access to monetization tools and features....We understand that you may have unintentionally made mistakes. That's why you'll be able to reapply for the YouTube Partner Program in 30 days.

Id. Plaintiff responded, arguing that his content did not violate YouTube's policies because it was his own original content, and providing his original video files. Pl.'s Ex. 12, Dec. 19, 2022, Emails, ECF No. 44-12 at 3-4. The account responded that “[u]nfortunately, after an internal team review, we still believe that your channel violates our channel monetisation policies, and we are unable to provide this information for the details of the determination of re-exploitation of others ....This will be final, and you will no longer be able to appeal the channel.” Id. at 6.

On February 28, 2023, Plaintiff received an email from YouTube that his “Don't Forget June 4” channel, a reference to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, had been removed. Pl.'s Ex. 6, Feb. 28, 2023, Email, ECF No. 44-6 at 3-4. There is no evidence in the record of prior notice or “strikes” before removal. The email states:

Dear Don't Forget June Fourth

After reviewing your content, we find that it is serious or repeatedly in violation of our Community Guidelines. We've removed your channel from YouTube for these reasons.

We know this may be frustrating for you, but it's our job to create a safe YouTube platform for all users. If we believe a channel violates our policies egregiously, we'll remove it to protect other users on that platform. However, if you believe that our decision was incorrect, you can appeal it.

Id.

Then, in July of 2023, Plaintiff received four cryptic, anonymous emails related to his YouTube channels. See Pl.'s Ex. 17, ECF No. 44-17. The emails purport to offer Plaintiff intelligence about the Chinese government, some with an offer of payment, and Plaintiff claims they are in fact attempts by CCP members to blackmail and bribe him. For example, one states, “I have inside information about the upcoming comic strip operation against the U.S. election in the United States” and “fifty-five copies of undisclosed scans of declassified documents,” and allows Plaintiff “five days” to respond to the email if interested. Id. at 11-12. Plaintiff thanked the individual for the offer but declined. Id. at 13-14. Afterwards, Plaintiff's videos were increasingly “flagged” by users which Plaintiff attributes to a coordinated effort by the CCP to increase the likelihood that YouTube would remove his content. See id. at 14-17.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 24, 2023, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought what he termed an “indictment” against Defendants “for economic damages caused by restrictions on speech.” Compl., ECF No. 1. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and Plaintiff elected to file an amended complaint with the assistance of New Haven Legal Aid Association's Federal Pro Se Program, rather than respond to Defendants' motion. ECF No. 28.

On July 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed the amended complaint against Defendants. ECF No. 29. Plaintiff brings one count for breach of contract and states the count is only brought against YouTube, not Google. Id. at 7 (“CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF CONTRACT (DEFENDANT YOUTUBE)”). Plaintiff claims YouTube's removal of his content without prior notice and without cause-including removal of the profit-making feature of one of his channels- violates YouTube's Terms of Service. Id. ¶¶ 19-20. Plaintiff also claims that YouTube is acting as an agent of the CCP, and the greater restrictions on his account can be traced back to the alleged January 24, 2022, hacking of his Google account by the CCP. See id. at 7-8, ¶ 10.

Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defs.' Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 36. Because both parties presented matters outside the pleadings, the Court converted Defendants' motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment and provided both sides an opportunity to submit additional evidence pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d). Order, ECF No. 39. In response, both parties submitted an affirmation and additional exhibits.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d) provides that “[i]f, on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) . . ., matters outside the...