674 F.Supp.3d 704
N.D. Cal.2023Background
- Plaintiffs (Maria Schneider, Uniglobe, AST) allege YouTube withheld broad access to its Content ID fingerprinting tool and strips or alters copyright management information (CMI), enabling repeated infringements; claims include direct, contributory, vicarious infringement and violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b).
- YouTube uses automated DMCA takedown procedures and limited human review; plaintiffs seek to use takedown records as classwide proof of ownership, infringement, and lack of defenses.
- Significant procedural and factual developments: Pirate Monitor dismissed its claims after evidence suggested it uploaded content and then submitted counternotices; Schneider’s summary judgment proceedings revealed extensive disputes over chain-of-title, publisher assignments, and whether a purported publisher license was valid under a consent/condition provision.
- Summary judgment resolved some issues for Schneider (TOS license and timeliness defenses defeated certain claims) but left material factual disputes about ownership, licensing, and CMI scienter for trial.
- Plaintiffs sought certification of four (b)(3) classes (Registered Works, Foreign Unregistered Works, ISRC, Clip Filename/CMI) and alternatively an issues class under Rule 23(c)(4); the court denied certification and deferred the Daubert challenge to plaintiffs’ experts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do DMCA takedown notices supply classwide proof of ownership, infringement, or lack of defenses? | Takedown notices and YouTube records show successful removals and thus establish ownership and infringement across the class. | Takedowns are procedural responses under the DMCA, largely automated, and do not substantively adjudicate ownership or infringement. | Denied: takedowns are only allegations; they do not provide classwide substantive proof. |
| Can ownership and license questions be resolved on a classwide basis? | YouTube’s databases (ISRCs, metadata) and takedown records allow classwide cross-checking to show lack of license. | Ownership and licensing are fact-specific and will require individualized inquiries (chains of title, sublicenses, TOS uploads, consent provisions). | Denied: individualized ownership and licensing issues predominate and defeat Rule 23(b)(3). |
| Can ISRC and CLFN (CMI) claims under §1202(b) be proven classwide given scienter requirements? | Plaintiffs rely on common evidence of missing/altered CMI to show knowing conduct and foreseeability of induced infringement. | §1202(b) requires specific scienter showing for each work showing removal/alteration likely to induce or facilitate infringement; facts are individualized. | Denied: scienter requires individualized proof; common issues do not predominate. |
| Is an issues class under Rule 23(c)(4) appropriate to isolate common questions? | If full certification fails, certifying discrete common issues would advance the case. | The many individualized liability and proof questions make issues certification inefficient and unhelpful. | Denied: plaintiffs failed to show an issues class would materially advance and comply with Rule 23. |
| Should plaintiffs’ experts (Cowan, Singer) be excluded at certification? | Plaintiffs relied on expert opinions to estimate class size and other matters. | YouTube moved to exclude under Daubert and Rule 702. | Motion terminated without prejudice: court did not rely on the experts for certification and deferred admissibility rulings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (class certification must be analyzed rigorously and may overlap with merits)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (commonality requires a contention capable of classwide resolution)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (predominance is a demanding inquiry for Rule 23(b)(3))
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (ownership is an element of copyright claim)
- Great Minds v. Office Depot, Inc., 945 F.3d 1106 (license defense defeats infringement if use falls within valid license)
- Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145 (DMCA takedown and put-back procedures and limits of takedown determinations)
- Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (service provider must remove infringing material to preserve safe harbor)
- Metro‑Goldwyn‑Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (inducement liability requires active steps encouraging infringement)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (contributory liability requires proof of direct infringement by third parties)
- Stevens v. CoreLogic, Inc., 899 F.3d 666 (Section 1202(b) scienter requires an affirmative, specific showing linking removal of CMI to likely future infringement)
- Skidmore as Tr. for Randy Craig Wolfe Tr. v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (copyright infringement analysis requires work‑by‑work, observer‑based similarity inquiry)