## Facts

- Jan Lewis used YouTube’s free video-sharing service and agreed to YouTube’s Terms of Service (TOS) to upload videos.
- Lewis alleged she spent substantial time and money producing videos that generated significant viewership and comments.
- In 2012, YouTube suspended or terminated Lewis’s account and removed her videos, citing policy/TOS violations; Lewis denied violating any rules.
- After Lewis complained, YouTube restored her account but did not restore the deleted videos or associated historical data (e.g., view counts and comments).
- Lewis sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, seeking damages (production costs and the value of her time) or, alternatively, specific performance requiring restoration of her videos and related data.
- The TOS contained a broad limitation-of-liability provision disclaiming or restricting monetary liability arising from use of the service.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint stated claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing given the TOS, including its limitation-of-liability provisions.
2. Whether Lewis alleged legally recoverable contract damages for removal of her videos and related data from a free service subject to the TOS.
3. Whether Lewis was entitled to specific performance compelling restoration of deleted videos and historical metrics.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of dismissal after the trial court sustained YouTube’s demurrer without leave to amend.
- Lewis failed to show entitlement to damages because the TOS’s limitation-of-liability clause and the nature of the free service defeated her damages theories as pleaded.
- Lewis failed to show entitlement to specific performance because the TOS did not impose a contractual duty requiring YouTube to restore deleted videos or associated data.
- The implied covenant claim failed because it could not impose obligations beyond the express terms of the TOS.
- Denial of leave to amend was proper because amendment could not cure the legal defects in the pleaded remedies and theories.

## Legal Principles

- On demurrer, courts assume well-pleaded factual allegations are true but do not accept legal conclusions; appellate review of an order sustaining a demurrer is de novo.
- Contract remedies require legally cognizable damages or an enforceable contractual obligation supporting equitable relief; a plaintiff must plead facts showing entitlement to the remedy sought.
- Specific performance is unavailable absent sufficiently definite contract terms and a demonstrated contractual duty to perform the demanded act.
- The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot create substantive obligations or limits not found in the contract’s express terms.
- Where a contract includes broad limitations of liability, pleaded damages theories may fail as a matter of law when the claimed losses fall within the contractual disclaimer or limitation.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because the TOS foreclosed Lewis’s damages theories and did not obligate YouTube to restore removed content or historical data, and the implied covenant could not be used to create a hosting or restoration duty not stated in the parties’ agreement.


Lewis v. YouTube, LLC, 244 Cal. App. 4th 118 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)