## Facts

- Prager University (PragerU) posted hundreds of videos on YouTube, a privately owned and operated video-hosting platform.
- To upload content, users agreed to YouTube’s terms of service, which reserved YouTube’s right to restrict or remove videos under its policies.
- YouTube offered “Restricted Mode,” a user-enabled setting intended to filter certain mature content; content could be placed in Restricted Mode via automated systems or user flagging, with an appeal and employee review process.
- YouTube classified several dozen PragerU videos as restricted, making them unavailable to users who enabled Restricted Mode.
- PragerU alleged the restrictions were viewpoint-based discrimination against conservative content and inconsistent with YouTube’s public statements portraying itself as an open platform committed to free expression.
- PragerU sued Google and YouTube asserting (1) a First Amendment claim under § 1983 premised on state action, (2) a Lanham Act false-advertising claim, and (3) related California law claims.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction, dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), and granted leave to amend; PragerU declined to amend and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether YouTube’s operation of a widely used, public-facing platform for user speech makes it a state actor subject to First Amendment constraints under the public-function or related state-action doctrines.
2. Whether YouTube’s statements about neutrality/free expression and its Restricted Mode designations constitute actionable false advertising under § 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of PragerU’s federal claims.
- YouTube is not a state actor; hosting and moderating user speech on a private platform does not transform YouTube into a public forum subject to the First Amendment.
- PragerU failed to state a Lanham Act claim because the challenged statements and Restricted Mode classifications were not “commercial advertising or promotion” and did not constitute actionable misrepresentations about PragerU’s videos.
- With federal claims dismissed, the case did not proceed on the pendent state-law claims.

## Legal Principles

- The First Amendment constrains governmental actors; a private entity is subject to First Amendment limits only in narrow circumstances, including when it performs a function that is traditionally and exclusively governmental.
- Providing a forum for speech, without more, is not a traditionally exclusive public function; a private platform does not become a state actor merely because it is large, widely accessible, or important to public discourse.
- Absent plausible allegations of government compulsion, joint action, or entwinement, a platform’s content-moderation decisions remain private conduct outside § 1983.
- Lanham Act false-advertising liability requires statements made in “commercial advertising or promotion” and a sufficiently concrete, verifiable misrepresentation of fact.
- Generalized promotional statements about values (e.g., commitments to free expression) and policy descriptions are typically non-actionable opinion or puffery, and internal content classifications do not necessarily communicate a definite factual claim about the classified content.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that YouTube’s moderation of user-uploaded videos, including Restricted Mode classifications, is private conduct not subject to First Amendment constraints, and that YouTube’s public messaging and classification decisions did not support a Lanham Act false-advertising claim.


Prager University v. Google LLC, 951 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2020)