Bartholomew v. YouTube, LLC
H042775
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 1, 2017Background
- Joyce Bartholomew, a musician, uploaded a Christian pro‑life music video to YouTube; YouTube later removed access and displayed: “This video has been removed because its content violated YouTube’s Terms of Service.”
- The removal page included a hyperlink to YouTube’s "Community Guideline Tips," a general list of example categories (e.g., Sex and Nudity, Hate Speech, Harassment, Copyright, Children, Dangerous Acts).
- Bartholomew alleged the removal statement plus the hyperlinked Tips defamed her (initially libel per se; amended to libel per quod) and claimed reputational harm and special damages.
- YouTube demurred; the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a defamatory meaning.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the removal statement and linked Guidelines were not reasonably understood to impute any specific defamatory wrongdoing to Bartholomew.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the removal statement alone is defamatory | Bartholomew: the statement implied serious misconduct and thus injured reputation | YouTube: statement merely reports a TOS violation (not per se defamatory) | Held: not defamatory on its face; too broad/general to expose plaintiff to hatred/contempt |
| Whether hyperlink to Community Guideline Tips makes statement defamatory of Bartholomew | Bartholomew: hyperlink functions like a footnote; Tips’ categories reasonably read to apply to her video | YouTube: hyperlink provides general examples applicable to thousands of videos, not particular to plaintiff | Held: hyperlink tips are general; no plausible theory that readers would understand the listed categories as referring to Bartholomew |
| Whether plaintiff pleaded defamatory meaning and inducement (libel per quod) | Bartholomew: alleged innuendo and special damages; invoked ejusdem generis to group examples as similar | YouTube: plaintiff failed to plead specific extrinsic facts showing readers would ascribe any listed misconduct to her | Held: plaintiff failed to plead a specific defamatory meaning or extrinsic facts showing statements were "of and concerning" her; amendment futile |
| Whether a group or generic accusation suffices when not naming plaintiff | Bartholomew: hyperlink effectively defamed a class including her | YouTube: generalized categories cannot be pinned to an individual; group too large/indeterminate | Held: generic/group defamation doctrine bars claim absent a small, ascertainable group or particularized attribution |
Key Cases Cited
- Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.3d 311 (standard for reviewing demurrer and leave to amend)
- Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 1112 (treatment of demurrer and pleading rules)
- MacLeod v. Tribune Publishing Co., 52 Cal.2d 536 (definition and inquiry for libel per se vs. per quod)
- Barnes-Hind, Inc. v. Superior Court, 181 Cal.App.3d 377 (requirement to plead innuendo and inducement for libel per quod)
- Selleck v. Globe Int’l, 166 Cal.App.3d 1123 (publication must be read as a whole to determine defamatory sting)
- Blatty v. New York Times Co., 42 Cal.3d 1033 (limitations on group defamation claims)
- Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 80 Cal.App.4th 1165 (focus on gist or sting of alleged defamatory publication)
- Vedovi v. Watson & Taylor, 104 Cal.App. 80 (requirement that defamatory words refer to an ascertainable person)