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
Conversion

Kimberly Carleste Newman, Lisa Cabrera, Catherine Jones, Denotra Nicole Lewis v. Google LLC, Youtube LLC, Alphabet Inc., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive

Published: Dec. 1, 2023 | Result Date: Aug. 17, 2023 | Filing Date: Jun. 16, 2020 |

Case number: 3:20-cv-04011-VC Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Vince G. Chhabria

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Peter Obstler
(Ellis, George, Cipollone, O'Brien & Annaguey LLP)

Dennis S. Ellis
(Ellis, George, Cipollone, O'Brien & Annaguey LLP)

Eric M. George
(Ellis, George, Cipollone, O'Brien & Annaguey LLP)


Defendant

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

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

Brian M. Willen
(Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati )

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


Facts

On Jun 16, 2020, several African American YouTubers, Kimberly Carleste Newman, Lisa Cabrera, Catherine Jones, and Denotra Nicole Lewis, filed suit on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against Google LLC, YouTube LLC, and Alphabet, Inc.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: The plaintiffs contended that YouTube's content moderation algorithm discriminated against them based on their race. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that the language of the site's community guidelines created an enforceable promise to engage in race-neutral content moderation; and that the defendant's machine learning algorithm violated this contract by subjecting their videos to adverse moderation while treating similar videos from white users more favorably. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants were liable for breach of contract; breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unlawful discrimination in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act; false advertising; and unfair business practices.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: The defendants denied any wrongdoing or liability and all the plaintiffs' material allegations. Moreover, the defendant contended it was shielded from liability under 47 U.S.C. Section 230.

Result

The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice.


#141941

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

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