Bartholomew v. Youtube, LLC.
17 Cal. App. 5th 1217
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Joyce Bartholomew, a Christian musician, uploaded a music video to YouTube in January 2014; by April it had ~30,000 views.
- YouTube removed the video and displayed a page stating: “This video has been removed because its content violated YouTube’s Terms of Service,” with a hyperlink to a “Community Guideline Tips” page listing ten broad categories (e.g., Sex and Nudity, Hate Speech, Copyright, Privacy, Harassment).
- Bartholomew sued, alleging libel (first libel per se, then amended to libel per quod), claiming the removal statement and the linked Guidelines defamed her and harmed her reputation and business.
- The trial court sustained YouTube’s demurrer to the amended complaint without leave to amend; Bartholomew appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the removal statement was not defamatory on its face and the Community Guideline Tips did not support a libel per quod claim because they did not ascribe any particular wrongful conduct to Bartholomew.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Community Guideline Tips (accessed by hyperlink) support libel per quod | The Tips, linked from the removal notice, conveyed defamatory categories that a reasonable viewer would attribute to Bartholomew, so they imputed actionable wrongdoing | The Tips are broad, exemplar categories for many videos and do not identify or reasonably refer to Bartholomew; no particular defamatory meaning is pleaded | Held against Bartholomew: Tips are general examples and do not impute specific wrongful conduct to her; no actionable defamatory meaning alleged |
| Whether the removal statement alone is defamatory on its face | A statement that the video violated YouTube’s Terms of Service implied abusive or offensive misconduct relevant to her career and thus was defamatory | A bare statement of a TOS violation is akin to alleging a contract breach and, given the breadth of TOS provisions, is not on its face likely to expose plaintiff to hatred, contempt, or injury to occupation | Held against Bartholomew: removal statement not libelous per se; no defamatory gist pleaded |
| Whether the hyperlink constitutes attribution/ republication of the linked content to plaintiff | Hyperlink functions like a footnote; linking makes the linked content attributable to the removal statement and thus to plaintiff | Hyperlinks have varied functions; here the link points to general guidance for many removals and does not single out plaintiff or create an innuendo tying particular categories to her | Held against Bartholomew: hyperlink did not make the broad Guidelines "of and concerning" her; plaintiff failed to plead inducement/innuendo showing readers would understand the Tips as referring to her |
Key Cases Cited
- Blank v. Kirwan, 39 Cal.3d 311 (1985) (standard of review for demurrer and leave to amend)
- Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.4th 1112 (2002) (treatment of demurrer admissions and pleadings)
- MacLeod v. Tribune Publishing Co., 52 Cal.2d 536 (1959) (distinction between libel per se and libel per quod; court decides reasonable susceptibility to defamatory meaning)
- Barnes-Hind, Inc. v. Superior Court, 181 Cal.App.3d 377 (1986) (innuendo/inducement requirements for libel per quod)
- Selleck v. Globe Int'l, 166 Cal.App.3d 1123 (1985) (publication measured by natural and probable effect on average reader; read as whole)
- Vedovi v. Watson & Taylor, 104 Cal.App. 80 (1930) (libel per quod requires words be of and concerning plaintiff; role of inducement)
- Blatty v. New York Times Co., 42 Cal.3d 1033 (1986) (group libel—identifiability of group members required for individual recovery)
- Emde v. San Joaquin County Cent. Labor Council, 23 Cal.2d 146 (1943) (breach-of-contract statement not defamatory per se; innuendo cannot expand natural meaning)
- Gautier v. General Tel. Co., 234 Cal.App.2d 302 (1965) (nonpayment/disconnection notice not libelous per se absent showing of tendency to degrade)
- Palm Springs Tennis Club v. Rangel, 73 Cal.App.4th 1 (1999) (plaintiff must plead inducement/innuendo and show how readers would understand defamatory meaning)
- Ringler Associates Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 80 Cal.App.4th 1165 (2000) (focus on the "gist or sting" of the statement for truth or defamatory character)
- O'Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal.App.4th 1423 (2006) (discussion of ejusdem generis and interpretation principles)