Case 5:17-cv-06064-LHK Document 54 Filed 03/26/18 Page 22 of 27 1 everyone’s voice can be heard,” Compl. ¶ 3; (2) YouTube’s “mission” is to “give people a voice” 2 in a “place to express yourself” and in a “community where everyone’s voice can be heard,” id. ¶ 3 28 (quoting YouTube’s “Official Blog”); and (3) YouTube is “one of the largest and most diverse 4 collections of self-expression in history” that gives “people opportunities to share their voice and 5 talent no matter where they are from or what their age or point of view.” Id. (quoting YouTube’s 6 “Official Blog”). United States District Court Northern District of California 7 The Court finds that all of these statements constitute mere “puffery” and are therefore not 8 actionable under the Lanham Act. See Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Sol., 513 F.3d 1038, 9 1053 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming a district court’s finding that a statement amounted to “puffing” 10 that was non-actionable under the Lanham Act). “A statement is considered puffery if the claim is 11 extremely unlikely to induce consumer reliance,” id., or if it is so vague that it is not “capable of 12 being proved false.” Coastal Abstract, 173 F.3d at 731. “Ultimately, the difference between a 13 statement of fact and mere puffery rests in the specificity or generality of the claim.” Newcal 14 Indus., 513 F.3d at 1053. A statement that is “quantifiable, that makes a claim as to the ‘specific 15 or absolute characteristics of a product,’ may be an actionable statement of fact while a general 16 subjective claim about a product is non-actionable puffery.” Id. (quoting Cook, Perkiss, & Liehe 17 v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 246 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also Cook, 911 F.2d at 18 246 (“In Smith-Victor, an advertiser’s statement that its lamps were ‘far brighter than any lamp 19 ever before offered for home movies’ was ruled puffery. However, when the advertiser quantified 20 numerically the alleged superior brightness with statements such as ’35,000 candle power and 10- 21 hour life,’ the court found a potential Lanham Act claim.”). 22 None of the statements about YouTube’s viewpoint neutrality identified by Plaintiff 23 resembles the kinds of “quantifiable” statements about the “specific or absolute characteristics of a 24 product” that are actionable under the Lanham Act. Newcal Indus., 513 F.3d at 1053. Rather, the 25 statements are vague representations about how YouTube is generally “committed to fostering a 26 community where everyone’s voice can be heard” and providing “opportunities” for people from 27 28 22 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