Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Green v. YouTube, LLC

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire

March 13, 2019

Isaac Green
YouTube, LLC et al.[1]



         Before the court for preliminary review is pro se plaintiff Isaac Green's First Amended Complaint (Doc. Nos. 59-1, 104)[2](“FAC”) and an addendum (Doc. No. 71) to the FAC. See Aug. 17, 2018 Order (referring FAC to magistrate judge for preliminary review). Also before the court for consideration and a report and recommendation (“R&R”) are the plaintiff's motions seeking preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. Nos. 4, 9, 18).


         I. Procedural History[3]

         After Green filed his initial complaint (Doc. No. 1), those defendants that had been served moved to dismiss the complaint. See Doc. Nos. 24, 25, 45, 48. In addition to filing objections (Doc. Nos. 53, 56) to the motions to dismiss, Green filed the FAC, which has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for a preliminary review. See Aug. 17, 2018 Order.

         After plaintiff filed the (proposed) FAC, defendants again moved to dismiss, see Doc. Nos. 68, 78, 79, 103, asserting essentially the same arguments set forth in their motions to dismiss the original complaint and including arguments to dismiss new claims Green asserted in the FAC. Green filed an objection (Doc. No. 82) to Patreon's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 68), and then did not file a response to the dispositive motions filed by Google, Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook (Doc. Nos. 78, 79). The June 18, 2018 procedural order (Doc. No. 90), issued before the end of the objection period for those defendants' motions, stated that the court would hold those motions (Doc. Nos. 68, 78, 79) in abeyance pending a ruling on certain other motions in the case and issuance of a briefing schedule, see June 18, 2018 Order (Doc. No. 90). GoFundMe then filed its own motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 103), asserting arguments similar to those asserted by the other defendants. Green did not file a response to GoFundMe's motion to dismiss.

         II. Factual Background

         Green's FAC contains no clear narrative and is difficult to understand. Many, if not most, of Green's assertions are legal conclusions that are not supported by any specific facts.

         Liberally construed, the FAC appears to allege the following facts and claims against defendants Google LLC (“Google”); Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”); YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”); Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”); Patreon, Inc. (“Patreon”); GoFundme, Inc. (“GoFundMe”); and Green's claims arise out of his assertions that his rights were violated in connection with his use of the defendants' websites and online platforms. Green alleges that he has created one or more accounts on YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Patreon, and/or GoFundMe. Using those accounts, Green posts content on the internet to be seen by those who subscribe to, patronize, or follow his accounts. The only claims Green makes that specifically describe the defendants' actions which Green alleges have caused him injury are:

• Defendant Twitter deleted one or more of Green's Tweets, and, on one occasion, deleted 500 or more of Green's followers;
• Green has had three YouTube channels, and YouTube has closed one of the channels, put two “false strikes” on his second channel, and prevented Green from streaming live videos on his third channel;
• Google, as the owner of YouTube, is responsible for YouTube's actions taken against Green;
• Facebook prevented Green from posting YouTube videos to his Facebook account, deleted Green's account and Green's “virtual property” associated with that account[4]; and
• Green raised over $1000 in a fundraiser he began on the GoFundMe platform, and then GoFundMe closed Green's account and returned the pledged donations to the donors.

         Green has not made specific allegations of injurious acts taken against him by Patreon or

         Green generally asserts that, due to the No. of people who view and subscribe to his accounts on the defendants' websites, he is entitled to certain advertising revenue earned by those websites, particularly YouTube. Green claims that the defendants have embezzled such revenue from him. Green further claims the defendants have engaged in various tactics to misappropriate and deprive Green of money to which he is entitled, including tampering with his accounts and manipulating data concerning the No. of people who subscribe to and view his posts, videos, and Tweets. Although Green concedes that he “does not actually know how much is paid [by YouTube/Google] per ad, per view and per option of advertising, ” FAC at 5, he states in the FAC that the defendants are embezzling 90% or 100% of the money he has earned on the defendants' internet platforms. Green also claims that the defendants, motivated by political bias, based on the views he expresses in his videos and other postings, have locked him out of his various accounts; closed his accounts; denied him the ability to post some or all content; deleted subscribers, comments, and view-counts relating to his accounts; placed false strikes on his accounts; stole or otherwise denied Green access to his “virtual property, ” and otherwise harassed him.

         III. Claims

         Generously construing the assertions in the FAC, the court finds that Green asserts the following claims in this action:

1. One or more of the defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) (“FLSA”), by failing to pay Green minimum wage.
2. One or more of the defendants have embezzled money earned by Green on the defendants' internet platforms and engaged in other criminal activity with regard to Green's use of those platforms.
3. One or more of the defendants have violated Green's First Amendment right to free speech, and engaged in viewpoint discrimination, by: a) censoring the content he posts on the defendants' internet platforms; b) denying Green access to the defendants' internet platforms; and c) requiring that Green agree to “Terms of Service” which allow the defendants to curtail his free speech rights.
4. Facebook has violated Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) rules.
5. Facebook targeted Green because he was involved in efforts to expose and prevent sex trafficking, in violation of: (a) the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, et seq. (“CFAA”); (b) the Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation Act of 2015, 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) (“SAVE Act”); and the combined Allow States and Victims to Fight ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.