Case 5:17-cv-06064-LHK Document 54 Filed 03/26/18 Page 4 of 27 1 user’s video contents is unwarranted or inappropriate.” Id. ¶ 46. Users may appeal the age 2 restriction on any particular video only once. Id. United States District Court Northern District of California 3 Plaintiff alleges that although YouTube has insisted in the past that YouTube’s Restricted 4 Mode and age restriction filtering—which purportedly apply the criteria described above—should 5 not and are not intended to filter out content based on political viewpoints, see id. ¶ 51, 6 Defendants have restricted access to some of Plaintiff’s videos “based on [Defendants’] animus 7 towards [Plaintiff’s] political identity and viewpoint.” Id. ¶ 52. Plaintiff also appears to allege 8 that Defendants have “demonetized” some of Plaintiff’s videos—by preventing advertisements 9 from running on those videos—in a viewpoint-discriminatory manner. See id. ¶ 91 (“No 10 compelling, significant, or legitimate reason justifies demonetizing or restricting Plaintiff’s 11 videos.”). Plaintiff does not allege, however, that any of Plaintiff’s videos have been completely 12 removed from YouTube. As discussed above, Plaintiff alleges only that some of Plaintiff’s videos 13 have been demonetized or censored (in the form of an age restriction or exclusion from the 14 Restricted Mode setting) based on Defendants’ intolerance towards Plaintiff’s political views. 15 To support its allegations of viewpoint discrimination, Plaintiff includes a chart that lists 16 (1) a number of Plaintiff’s videos to which access has been restricted by YouTube; and (2) various 17 unrestricted videos that discuss the same topics as Plaintiff’s videos, but from a liberal 18 perspective. See id. at 26–32. For example, the chart shows that one of Plaintiff’s videos titled 19 “Are 1 in 5 women in college raped?” has been restricted by YouTube, but that another video 20 titled “Author Jon Krakauer on new book ‘Missoula’ and college rape epidemic” and uploaded by 21 the “CBS This Morning” channel has no such restriction. Id. at 26. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges 22 that content from some of Plaintiff’s restricted videos “was not restricted after it was copied and 23 posted by other content providers or vloggers.” Id. ¶ 70. 24 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ discriminatory censorship of Plaintiff’s videos “continues 25 to this day.” Id. ¶ 67. Plaintiff’s chart indicates that as of October 23, 2017, at least twenty-one of 26 Plaintiff’s videos remain restricted by YouTube. See id. at 26–32. 27 28 4 Case No. 17-CV-06064-LHK ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL CAUSES OF ACTION; DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CAUSES OF ACTION; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION