Case 5:17-cv-06064-LHK Document 54 Filed 03/26/18 Page 23 of 27 1 all over to share their diverse “point[s] of view.” Compl. ¶¶ 3, 28. The statements do not say 2 anything specific about YouTube’s “mission” to “give people a voice,” and make no concrete and 3 measurable guarantees or representations about the “opportunities” made available for people to 4 express themselves “no matter where they are from or what their age or point of view.” Id. ¶ 28. 5 As a result, the Court concludes that these statements are neither “[]likely to induce consumer 6 reliance,” Newcal Indus., 513 F.3d at 1053, nor “capable of being proved false,” Coastal Abstract, 7 173 F.3d at 731, and are therefore non-actionable puffery under the Lanham Act. United States District Court Northern District of California 8 Further, like with YouTube’s policies and guidelines, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged 9 that it “has been or is likely to be injured as the result of the” statements about YouTube’s 10 viewpoint neutrality. Southland Sod, 108 F.3d at 1139. As discussed above, any harm that 11 Plaintiff suffered was caused by Defendants’ decisions to limit access to some of Plaintiff’s 12 videos, which are also not actionable as false advertisements under the Lanham Act. For these 13 reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled a false advertising claim under the 14 Lanham Act based on Defendants’ statements about YouTube’s viewpoint neutrality. 15 iv. Terms of Agreements Between Plaintiff and Defendants 16 Finally, Plaintiff states that it relied on false representations contained in the terms of 17 certain agreements between Plaintiff and Defendants, and argues that those representations amount 18 to false advertising under the Lanham Act. Opp. at 24 (citing Compl. ¶ 112). Specifically, 19 Plaintiff points to Defendants’ representations that Defendants endeavor to “help you grow,” 20 “discover what works best for you,” and “giv[e] you tools, insights and best practices for using 21 your voice and videos.” Compl. ¶ 112. Plaintiff alleges that these false representations induced 22 Plaintiff to “cho[o]se YouTube as the host of its videos.” Id. 23 The Court finds that Plaintiff falls well short of stating a false advertising claim based on 24 these representations. First, like the statements about YouTube’s viewpoint neutrality, these 25 representations are vague, general statements about YouTube’s services that amount to no more 26 than puffery. Once again, there is nothing quantifiable or specific about Defendants’ endeavor to 27 28 23 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