YouTube Again Defeats FOSTA Lawsuit–In re YouTube Trafficking Litigation
Technology & Marketing Law Blog 2025-06-26
[Note: my blogging hiatus is due to a trip to China. I will return to the US this weekend and presumably resume my regular blogging cadence then.]
This is a confusing lawsuit that has been through several names, including “Sarah v. Google” and “Unknown Parties v. Google.” The court previously described the core allegations:
The plaintiffs allege that Onision “ran several YouTube channels” that “targeted minor audiences” and allowed Onision to “groom and lure underage girls.” According to the plaintiffs, YouTube is liable because it provided a platform for Onision to reach young girls and because it shared advertising revenue with him.
The court previously dismissed the case on Section 230 grounds and rejected the FOSTA workaround. Now, YouTube moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, and the court again grants the motion to dismiss based on Section 230. Much of this very short opinion covers the same ground as the prior opinion, so read my earlier post for more details.
The court says:
The allegations center on how Onision posted video content to his YouTube channels, how that content is said to have targeted and garnered underage audiences which gave him access to underage fans, and how YouTube derived ad revenue from the online traffic to Onision’s videos. In short, plaintiffs’ theory of liability would require Google and YouTube to act as a monitor of third-party content, which is precisely the sort of liability that Section 230 prohibits [cite to Doe v. Grindr]
The plaintiff again pointed to YouTube’s Partnership Program (YPP) and its revenue-share with posters. The court says the YPP didn’t create an agency relationship or partnership (despite the name…) between YouTube and the posters. As mentioned in my prior post, this court’s answer sidesteps the ambiguity about what’s left of the Ninth Circuit’s Gonzalez v. Google ruling, which indicated that Section 230 didn’t apply to revenue-share arrangements.
The FOSTA workaround also fails:
plaintiffs rely on allegations about YouTube’s general video-search algorithms, control over ad revenue generated from viewership of Onision’s content per the YPP agreement, and instances in which YouTube was notified via complaints that Onision was violating its terms of service. The claim is directly foreclosed by Grindr because these allegations, taken as true, show no more than that YouTube “provided a platform that facilitated the sharing of [videos] between users” and “merely turn[ed] a blind eye to the source of its revenue.” Plausible allegations that YouTube “generally benefitted from sex traffickers’ use of [its platform]” do not establish that YouTube’s “own conduct” violated section 1591
Case Citation: In re YouTube Trafficking Litigation, 2025 WL 1745759 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2025)
More SESTA/FOSTA-Related Posts
* A Roundup of Recent Section 230 Decisions Involving Sex Abuse or CSAM * Ninth Circuit Says Section 230 Preempts “Defective Design” Claims–Doe v. Grindr * Section 230 Immunizes OnlyFans for User-Uploaded Video (Again)–Doe v. Fenix * The Fifth Circuit’s Campaign to Undermine Section 230 Is Making Progress–AB v. Salesforce * Omegle Defeats Lawsuit Over User’s “Capping”–MH v. Omegle * Section 230 Immunizes OnlyFans for User-Uploaded Video–Doe v. Fenix * Five Decisions Illustrate How Section 230 Is Fading Fast * Section 230 Preempts FOSTA Claim–Doe v. WebGroup Czech Republic * Instagram Defeats Lawsuit Claiming It Was a “Breeding Ground” for Sex Traffickers–Doe v. Backpage * The 7th Circuit’s Section 230 Jurisprudence’s Impact on FOSTA Cases * Grindr Defeats FOSTA Claim–Doe v. Grindr * Twitter Defeats FOSTA Case Over CSAM–Doe v. Twitter * DC Circuit Upholds FOSTA’s Constitutionality (By Narrowing It)–Woodhull v. U.S. * Section 230 Immunizes Snap, Even if It’s “Inherently Dangerous”–L.W. v. Snap * The Ninth Circuit’s FOSTA Jurisprudence Is Getting Clearer (and More Defense-Favorable) * Defendants Get Important FOSTA Win in 9th Circuit–Doe v. Reddit * More Evidence that FOSTA Benefited No One * Omegle Denied Section 230 Dismissal–AM v. Omegle * Section 230 Helps Craigslist Defeat Sex Trafficking Case–LH v. Marriott * Section 230 Helps Salesforce Defeat Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–GG v. Salesforce * Constitutional Challenge to FOSTA Fails–Woodhull v. US * Catching Up on a FOSTA Case–ML v. Craigslist * Facebook Loses Jurisdictional Ruling in Texas Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–Facebook v. Doe * Justice Thomas Really, REALLY Wants Section 230 Repealed (Even If He Has to Do It Himself) * Section 230 Immunizes TikTok for User-Posted Videos–Day v. TikTok * So Many Unanswered Empirical Questions About FOSTA * Another Problematic FOSTA Ruling–Doe v. Pornhub * Catching Up on Recent FOSTA Developments (None of Them Good) * Section 230 Preempts Claims Against Omegle–M.H. v. Omegle * To No One’s Surprise, FOSTA Is Confounding Judges–J.B. v. G6 * FOSTA Claim Can Proceed Against Twitter–Doe v. Twitter * FOSTA Survives Constitutional Challenge–US v. Martono * 2H 2020 Quick Links, Part 4 (FOSTA) * Justice Thomas’ Anti-Section 230 Statement Doesn’t Support Reconsideration–JB v. Craigslist * Sex Trafficking Lawsuit Against Craigslist Moves Forward–ML v. Craigslist * Section 230 Preempts Another FOSTA Claim–Doe v. Kik * Section 230 Protects Craigslist from Sex Trafficking Claims, Despite FOSTA–JB v. Craigslist * Facebook Still Can’t Dismiss Sex Trafficking Victims’ Lawsuit in Texas State Court * Craigslist Denied Section 230 Immunity for Classified Ads from 2008–ML v. Craigslist * 2H 2019 and Q1 2020 Quick Links, Part 3 (FOSTA/Backpage) * New Paper Explains How FOSTA Devastated Male Sex Workers * FOSTA Constitutional Challenge Revived–Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. US * New Civil FOSTA Lawsuits Push Expansive Legal Theories Against Unexpected Defendants (Guest Blog Post) * Section 230 Helps Salesforce Defeat Sex Trafficking Lawsuit–Doe v. Salesforce * Latest Linkwrap on FOSTA’s Aftermath * Section 230 Doesn’t End Lawsuit Claiming Facebook Facilitated Sex Trafficking–Doe v. Facebook * New Essay: The Complicated Story of FOSTA and Section 230 * Who Benefited from FOSTA? (Spoiler: Probably No One) * FOSTA’s Political Curse * FOSTA Doesn’t Help Pro Se Litigant’s Defamation Claim Against Facebook * Constitutional Challenge to FOSTA Dismissed for Lack of Standing (Guest Blog Post) * An Update on the Constitutional Court Challenge to FOSTA–Woodhull Freedom v. US (Guest Blog Post) * Indianapolis Police Have Been “Blinded Lately Because They Shut Backpage Down” * Constitutional Challenge Against FOSTA Filed–Woodhull v. US (Guest Blog Post) * Catching Up on FOSTA Since Its Enactment (A Linkwrap) * More Aftermath from the ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’ * ‘Worst of Both Worlds’ FOSTA Signed Into Law, Completing Section 230’s Evisceration * Backpage Loses Another Section 230 Motion (Again Without SESTA/FOSTA)–Florida Abolitionists v. Backpage * District Court Ruling Highlights Congress’ Hastiness To Pass ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’– Doe 1 v. Backpage * More on the Unconstitutional Retroactivity of ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’ (Guest Blog Post) * Senate Passes ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’ (Linkwrap) * Why FOSTA’s Restriction on Prostitution Promotion Violates the First Amendment (Guest Blog Post) * SESTA’s Sponsors Still Don’t Understand Section 230 (As They Are About to Eviscerate It) * Can the ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’ Be Salvaged? Perhaps…and You Can Help (URGENT CALL TO ACTION) * Congress Probably Will Ruin Section 230 This Week (SESTA/FOSTA Updates) * What’s New With SESTA/FOSTA (January 17, 2018 edition) * New House Bill (Substitute FOSTA) Has More Promising Approach to Regulating Online Sex Trafficking * My testimony at the House Energy & Commerce Committee: Balancing Section 230 and Anti-Sex Trafficking Initiatives * How SESTA Undermines Section 230’s Good Samaritan Provisions * Manager’s Amendment for SESTA Slightly Improves a Still-Terrible Bill * Another Human Trafficking Expert Raises Concerns About SESTA (Guest Blog Post) * Another SESTA Linkwrap (Week of October 30) * Recent SESTA Developments (A Linkwrap) * Section 230’s Applicability to ‘Inconsistent’ State Laws (Guest Blog Post) * An Overview of Congress’ Pending Legislation on Sex Trafficking (Guest Blog Post) * The DOJ’s Busts of MyRedbook & Rentboy Show How Backpage Might Be Prosecuted (Guest Blog Post) * Problems With SESTA’s Retroactivity Provision (Guest Blog Post) * My Senate Testimony on SESTA + SESTA Hearing Linkwrap * Debunking Some Myths About Section 230 and Sex Trafficking (Guest Blog Post) * Congress Is About To Ruin Its Online Free Speech Masterpiece (Cross-Post) * Backpage Executives Must Face Money Laundering Charges Despite Section 230–People v. Ferrer * How Section 230 Helps Sex Trafficking Victims (and SESTA Would Hurt Them) (guest blog post) * Sen. Portman Says SESTA Doesn’t Affect the Good Samaritan Defense. He’s Wrong * Senate’s “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017”–and Section 230’s Imminent Evisceration * The “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017” Bill Would Be Bad News for Section 230 * WARNING: Draft “No Immunity for Sex Traffickers Online Act” Bill Poses Major Threat to Section 230 * The Implications of Excluding State Crimes from 47 U.S.C. § 230’s Immunity
The post YouTube Again Defeats FOSTA Lawsuit–In re YouTube Trafficking Litigation appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.