A 4th Amended Complaint in YouTube/ISIS Suit Sure to Fail, Professor Says
A dismissed third amended complaint against Google for its YouTube service allegedly providing material support for ISIS leaves the door open for yet one more amended complaint on one theory, but when that theory "inevitably fails," the next step is…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
perhaps "almost-certainly-futile appeal," Santa Clara University Director-High Tech Law Institute Professor Eric Goldman blogged Monday. Goldman said the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision earlier this year in Fields vs. Twitter was clear that social media providers aren't proximate causes of terrorist-related injuries, so the YouTube suit didn't overcome that standard. He said the claim YouTube shares revenue with terrorists "clearly has no chance," and the entire subset of litigation going up against Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act -- which makes immune interactive computer services that publish third-party users' content -- "will fade away." In the docket 16-cv-03282-DMR decision (in Pacer) last week, Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu said the revenue sharing claims -- the revenue coming from YouTube advertising -- also don't support the proximate causation finding under the Fields standard. She said the other claims were being dismissed with prejudice, but she couldn't conclude that further amendment of revenue sharing claims would be futile and said the plaintiffs can file a fourth amended complaint. The plaintiffs -- surviving family members of a woman killed in November 2015 terrorist attack in Paris by ISIS-associated terrorists -- allege that because ISIS used YouTube as a recruitment tool, the platform knowingly provided material support to the terror group.