This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Breach of the Implired Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Marshall Daniels v. Alphabet Inc., et al.

Published: Jun. 30, 2023 | Result Date: Mar. 8, 2023 | Filing Date: Jul. 14, 2020 |

Case number: 5:20-cv-04687-VKD Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Virginia K. DeMarchi

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Maria Christina Armenta
(Ellis, George, Cipollone, O'Brien & Annaguey)


Defendant

Lauren Gallo White
(Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati PC)

David H. Kramer
(Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati PC)

Kelly M. Knoll
(Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati PC)


Facts

Marshall Daniels filed an action against Alphabet, Inc., Google, LLC, and YouTube, LLC.

Daniels had a YouTube channel on which he posted videos concerning issues of politics, race, public health, spirituality, and economics. YouTube took down at least two of Daniels' videos for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines and its policy on harassment and bullying.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendants had violated his First Amendment rights and asserted several other state-law claims. Plaintiff's breach of contract claim asserted that defendants promised to pay him monies he earned from SuperChat donations but breached that promise by withholding the SuperChat revenues that were due and owing to him at the time that YouTube demonetized him and disabled his SuperChat function. Plaintiff contended that YouTube retained monies that plaintiff's followers donated to him through the YouTube platform's SuperChat function, which allowed any third parties to donate monies to content creators such as plaintiff during a live stream. Plaintiff contended that Google represented to its users that SuperChat and SuperStickers were ways to monetize a user's channel through the YouTube Partner Program. Plaintiff asserted that SuperChat revenue was separate and apart from YouTube Partner advertising revenue. Plaintiff argued that defendants' SuperChat policies were incorporated into or governed by YouTube's Terms of Service.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions and argued, among other things, that the Terms of Service did not contain any provisions regarding the SuperChat function.

Result

Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.


#141034

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390