la divisione San Josè della district court californiana decide l’8 luglio 2021, Case 5:20-cv-04687-VKD , Marshall Daniels. c. Alphabet, la lite promossa da utente Youtube che aveva lamentato sia la rimozione di suoi video che la demonetizzaione delle donazioni già maturate tramite la funzione SuperChat , che permette di pagare per avere Chat in primo piano durante una esecuzione in diretta: <<The SuperChat function “allows third parties to donate monies to content creators such as Mr. Daniels during a live stream.” Id.¶ 13.Any viewer watching a YouTube livestream can purchase a “SuperChat,” which is a highlighted chat that remains pinned to the top of the chat stream for up to five hours. Id.¶ 19. According to Mr. Daniels, “Google represents to its users that ‘SuperChat and Super Stickers are ways to monetize your channel through the YouTube Partner Program.’” Id. ¶ 13. SuperChat revenue is “separate and apart from YouTube Partner advertising revenue.” Id.¶ 13 n.4>>, p. 2.
Sulle funzioni SuperChat e Super Sticker v. la pagina guida di Youtube.
Notiamo che è data per scontata la qualifica contrattuale del rapporto tra utente e Youtube, anche se il primo nulla deve monetariamente alla seconda.
In precedenza la corte aveva rigettato per quattro ragioni la domanda di Daniels e qui le ricorda:
<<First, with respect to Mr. Daniels’s allegation that defendants breached YouTube’s Terms of Service by failing to inform him when one of his videos was flagged or removed, the Court found that Mr. Daniels did not plead any facts suggesting that defendants were required to notify him of the specific reasons for the removal of his content or that YouTube’s alleged failure to provide advance notification was inconsistent with the highly discretionary policy described in the Terms of Service. SeeDkt. No. 31 at 14; Dkt. No. 18–2 at 4.
Second, with respect to Mr. Daniels’s allegation that defendants breached the Terms of Service by failing to provide an appeals process, the Court found that the Terms of Service did not guarantee an appeals process in any particular form, andeven if it did, Mr. Daniels had acknowledged that he engaged in an appeals process for both of his removed videos. Dkt. No. 31 at 14.
Third, with respect to Mr. Daniels’s allegation that defendants breached the Terms of Service by failing to permit Mr. Daniels to post his videos, the Court found that theexpress terms of theTerms of Service contradicted Mr. Daniels’s claim that the Terms of Service permit YouTube to remove content only in the event that that content violates the Community Guidelines. SeeDkt. No. 31 at 14–15; Dkt. No. 18–2 at 4(“YouTube is under no obligation to host or serve Content” and “may remove or take down that Content in our discretion”).
Fourth, with respect to Mr. Daniels’s allegation that defendants failed to pay him based on SuperChat views and donations, the Court found that Mr. Daniels had failed to adequately allege apromise that was breached because theTerms of Service on which Mr. Danielsrelies do not address any kind of arrangement to pay users based on SuperChat views and donations. SeeDkt. No. 31 at 15. However, the Court observed that Mr. Daniels might be able to plead a proper breach of contract claim based on a different agreement, such as the YouTube Partner Program agreement.>>.
La domanda modificata contempla il denaro che Y. aveva promesso di girargli tramite le donazioni su SuperChat ma che non gli girò. Secondo l’attore viola il contratto dato che l’unica ragione per cui avrebbe potuto non girarglielo era la clausola sui sei mesi di inattività (six months dormant), però non operante nel caso specifico.
La corte rigetta: <<Defendants argue, and Mr. Daniels concedes, that the Terms of Service do not contain any provisions regarding the SuperChat function.Seeid.¶ 20; Dkt. No. 33 at 5. Mr. Danielsrespondsthat Defendants’ posted SuperChat policies are incorporated into and/or governed by YouTube’s Terms of Service. Dkt.No. 34 at 3–4. Essentially, he suggests that the Terms of Service encompass any statements about the SuperChat function posted elsewhere by Defendants.In the FAC, Mr. Daniels alleges that“YouTube has promised the users of the SuperChatfunction that there is one situation in which the SuperChat may be demonetized: if the creator has been dormant for six months.” Dkt. No. 32 ¶20. In opposing dismissal, Mr. Daniels identifies the source of this alleged promiseas a document already of record in this proceeding: Exhibit 122to the declaration of Lauren White. Dkt. No. 18–13.
That document, titled “YouTube Partner Program overview & eligibility,” includes the following statement: “We updated this article to provide more transparency thatYouTube may disable monetization for channels that haven’t uploaded a video or posted to the Communitytab for 6 months or more.” Id.
Mr. Daniels’s assertion that this statement constitutes a promise by Defendants to pay Mr. Daniels for SuperChat donations so long as his channel is not dormant from six months or more is simply implausible.3
The statement does not refer to the SuperChat function, nor does it contain a promise that the only circumstancein which monetization will be disabled is if a channel is dormant for six months.
Mr. Daniels describes no other basis for Defendants’ purported breach of a promise to pay him for SuperChat donations already earned.
In sum, Mr. Daniels’s FAC does not state a claim for breach of contract because,as before,he fails to identify any contractual obligation that Defendants breached>>
(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog di Eric Goldman)