A recent court ruling reaffirmed YouTube's authority to remove videos from its platform, emphasizing that YouTube possessed the discretion to eliminate content that posed a risk to its users.
In a legal case, prominent anti-vaccine advocate Joseph Mercola attempted to compel YouTube to reinstate videos that had been removed following the termination of his channels by YouTube. Mercola claimed YouTube owed him over $75,000 in damages for breaching its user contract and denying him access to his content. However, US magistrate judge Laurel Beeler dismissed Mercola's lawsuit, citing the contract terms he had agreed to, which stated that YouTube was not obligated to host Mercola's content after terminating his channel in 2021 for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines by spreading medical misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines.
Judge Beeler explicitly stated, "The court found no breach because 'there is no provision in the Terms of Service that requires YouTube to maintain particular content' or be a 'storage site for users’ content.'"
Since Mercola's contract with YouTube was deemed valid, and YouTube had the authority to remove content that posed harm to its users, Beeler concluded that Mercola's claims for breach of contract or unjust enrichment were not plausible.
The court dismissed Mercola's complaint without the possibility of amending it, and there has been no immediate comment from Google or Mercola regarding the decision.
In his complaint, Mercola described himself as a "board-certified physician and leader in the field of natural health" who had been an early user of YouTube, sharing video content since its founding in 2005. He had amassed 300,000 subscribers and 50 million views on his YouTube channel, which linked to his website promoting natural health, health articles, wellness products, medical news, and a newsletter.
However, researchers and regulators had a different perspective, characterizing Mercola as a major disseminator of coronavirus misinformation and someone who profited from misleading claims about COVID-19 vaccines.
Mercola argued that YouTube never notified him that his content violated community guidelines, and he claimed to have carefully avoided posting any content related to COVID-19 vaccines that could be perceived as contrary to official government positions.
Mercola became aware of YouTube's decision to ban his channel when The Washington Post published an article about it, after which he claimed he received an immediate message stating that his channels were banned for violating YouTube's new vaccine misinformation policy. His appeal to reverse YouTube's decision was also denied.
In his lawsuit, Mercola alleged that YouTube failed to provide advance notice of its vaccine misinformation policy change, did not warn him of the termination, did not act fairly or in good faith, and did not grant him access to his content as required by YouTube's terms of use. He further claimed that YouTube had unfairly benefited from retaining and exclusively using his content.
However, Judge Beeler rejected all of Mercola's arguments, concurring with YouTube's position that there was no contract breach, no basis for awarding damages, and that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shielded YouTube from Mercola's claims. Beeler noted that YouTube had the discretion to terminate channels without prior warning in cases of severe abuse, as stipulated in the contract.
Commenti