Enhanced Athlete Inc. v. Google Llc.

479 F. Supp. 3d 824 (2020)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P alleges that it posted informational and educational videos concerning personal fitness and overall well-being on its two YouTube channels. P had posted 'nearly 200 videos' and had accrued a total of approximately 145,000 subscribers. P claims that at least some of its videos contained information regarding 'Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARMS),' which are not regulated and have not been approved by the FDA for human consumption. P claims that its videos were 'perfectly legal,' contained 'non-offensive topics,' and were in full compliance with YouTube's Terms of Use and Community Guidelines. P claim that rather than adhering to their own Terms of Use and Community Guidelines, D applies some kind of arbitrary 'advertiser-friendly' criteria. In response P deleted certain videos just to be sure [such] guidelines were met.' D still 'deemed those deleted videos objectionable and struck them.' D permanently terminated P's YouTube channels. D provided vague or boilerplate responses, claiming that the videos 'promoted violent or dangerous acts that have an inherent risk of serious physical harm or death.' P asserted causes of action for (1) unfair competition, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) false advertising, in violation of the Lanham Act, and (4) declaratory relief. D moved to dismiss claiming that P's claims are barred by § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and in the alternative, P failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).