Case 5:17-cv-06064-LHK Document 54 Filed 03/26/18 Page 3 of 27 1 to share their voice and talent no matter where they are from or what their age or point of view.” 2 Id. ¶ 28. Plaintiff states that “[s]ince its inception, [Plaintiff] has posted more than 250 of [its] 3 videos on” YouTube. Id. ¶ 34. United States District Court Northern District of California 4 Plaintiff alleges that, despite YouTube’s purported viewpoint neutrality, Defendants have 5 discriminated against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s political identity and viewpoint by censoring 6 certain videos that Plaintiff uploaded on YouTube. Id. ¶ 52. According to Plaintiff, this 7 censorship takes the form of putting age restrictions on some of Plaintiff’s videos and/or excluding 8 them from YouTube’s “Restricted Mode” setting. YouTube’s “Restricted Mode” setting is an 9 “optional feature to help institutions like schools as well as people who wanted to better control 10 the content they see on YouTube.” Id. Defendants “ensure that videos containing potentially 11 mature content will not be shown to viewers who have Restricted Mode turned on” based on 12 certain criteria contained in different “guidelines.” Id. ¶ 42. For example, Defendants apply a set 13 of “Restricted Mode Guidelines” that contain criteria like whether the video in question contains 14 discussions about drug use, “overly detailed conversations about” sex, or “inappropriate 15 language.” Id. Further, if a video is “flagged” as “inappropriate” by a viewer, a “team” of 16 YouTube employees will review that video for “violations of [YouTube’s] Community 17 Guidelines,” which focus on “[n]udity of sexual content,” “[v]iolent or graphic content,” 18 “[h]armful or dangerous content,” “[h]ateful content,” copyright violations, “threats,” “spam, 19 misleading metadata, and scams.” Id. ¶ 43. Beyond that, “on some occasions, a video may not 20 violate the Community Guidelines but may still be subject to” an age restriction—and are 21 therefore made “not visible to users who are logged out, are under 18 years of age, or have 22 Restricted Mode enabled”—based on certain age-restriction criteria, including “vulgar language,” 23 “violence and distributing imagery,” “nudity and sexually suggestive content,” and “portrayal of 24 harmful or dangerous activities involving content that intends to incite violence or encourage 25 dangerous or illegal activities.” Id. ¶ 45. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants provide “a limited 26 appeal process for any users who believe that the application of age restriction filtering to the 27 28 3 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