Facts

Daniel Reale was a Connecticut resident who had a YouTube channel on which he posted content critical of public health failures and the government response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Google owns YouTube and promotes it as a neutral content platform supporting freedom of speech and public discourse. Google removed Reale's video entitled "Day 429 of the 15 Day Lockdown," labeling it as "medical misinformation," and denying his appeal. They removed another one of his videos, labeling it as selling a deceptive product or service. Reale brought a claim against Google LLC, YouTube LLC, and Alphabet Inc. in the District Court for the Northern District, alleging Sherman Act, Robinson-Patman Act, and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act violations.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that defendants, under the fraudulent guise of offering a content neutral platform for freedom of speech, conspired to reset view counters of channels, suppressed the searchability of plaintiff's channel, and deleted content it politically disagreed with to discourage an exploration of alternatives to COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccines. In particular, plaintiff maintained that defendants had a conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective, the restraint of trade, by taking down plaintiff's videos on his YouTube channel and deplatforming popular channels that have existed for years. Moreover, plaintiff maintained that defendant acquired YouTube to monopolize the online videography industry, and control advertising content itself rather than offer a true profit-sharing enterprise. Finally, plaintiff contended that defendants have profited, purposefully, off government advertising at the international, state, federal, and local levels by promoting content that justifies lockdowns, restrictions, and denials of medical freedom.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants alleged that plaintiff's Robinson-Patman Act claim should be dismissed because the alleged transaction did not involve a commodity or good. Additionally, defendants contended that the court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims. Further, defendants argued that plaintiff's Sherman Act claims should be dismissed because a parent company cannot conspire with its subsidiaries in violation of the Act and any injury suffered as a result of the removal was not the type the laws were intended to prevent.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss without leave to amend.