## Facts

- Enhanced Athlete Inc. operated two YouTube channels focused on personal fitness and well-being, with nearly 200 videos and about 145,000 subscribers.
- Some videos discussed selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs), which were not FDA-approved for human consumption; the plaintiff alleged its content was legal and complied with YouTube’s rules.
- YouTube removed videos, issued strikes, and ultimately terminated the channels, stating the videos promoted “dangerous acts” risking serious harm or death.
- The plaintiff alleged YouTube applied an arbitrary “advertiser friendly” standard rather than its stated Terms of Use and Community Guidelines and counted certain deleted videos toward the “three strikes” policy.
- YouTube’s published terms reserved broad discretion, including the right to remove content and to decide in its sole discretion whether content complied with platform policies.

## Issues

1. Whether claims under California unfair competition and false advertising laws, and related requests for declaratory relief, were barred by 47 U.S.C. § 230 because they sought to impose liability for YouTube’s removal and termination decisions.
2. Whether the plaintiff stated a plausible California claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on allegedly arbitrary enforcement and use of an extra-contractual “advertiser friendly” standard.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court dismissed the unfair competition, false advertising, and declaratory relief claims with prejudice as barred by CDA § 230(c)(1).
- The court dismissed the implied covenant claim with leave to amend, concluding the complaint did not plausibly allege a breach given the discretion granted by YouTube’s terms, while recognizing § 230 does not automatically bar contract-based claims.

## Legal Principles

- CDA § 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service from claims that treat it as a publisher or speaker based on decisions to display, remove, or restrict user-generated content.
- A plaintiff cannot avoid § 230(c)(1) by styling a challenge to content moderation as unfair competition, false advertising, or declaratory relief when liability depends on editorial decisions about third-party content.
- CDA § 230 does not automatically preclude contract-based claims alleging failure to comply with the service provider’s own contractual obligations.
- Under California law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot be used to prohibit conduct that a contract expressly permits; broad contractual grants of “sole discretion” substantially limit implied-covenant theories attacking moderation decisions.

## Conclusion

The court held that § 230 barred statutory and declaratory claims targeting YouTube’s removal of videos and termination of channels, and it dismissed the implied-covenant claim for failing to allege a plausible contractual breach in light of YouTube’s expressly reserved discretion, while allowing an opportunity to replead that contract theory.


Enhanced Athlete Inc. v. Google LLC, 479 F. Supp. 3d 824 (N.D. Cal. 2020)