Case Summary and Outcome

The Fifth Constitutional Court of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima, Peru, held that the temporary removal of a YouTube video published by journalist Marco Sifuentes constituted an unjustified restriction on his right to freedom of expression. The case originated when Sifuentes, director of the digital media outlet La Encerrona, published a video on his YouTube channel exposing alleged conflicts of interest involving Congresswoman Rosselli Amuruz and her family. That same day, YouTube removed the video, claiming that it violated its personal identification policy. As a result, Sifuentes filed an amparo lawsuit against Google LLC, requesting the annulment of the decision and the restoration of the video without restrictions. Google LLC argued that there was no actual violation of the journalist’s right to freedom of expression, as the video had been restored before the start of the judicial process and could be viewed without any restrictions. The Court determined that the temporary removal of the content by Google LLC, based on its “personal identification” policy, was not properly justified and affected both the journalist’s right to inform and the public’s right to receive information on matters of public interest. The decision was based on Inter-American human rights standards, citing the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which emphasizes that freedom of expression protects both the right to disseminate information and the public’s right to receive it. In its ruling, the Court declared the lawsuit well-founded and ordered non-repetition measures, urging Google LLC to refrain from imposing arbitrary restrictions that could infringe on the right to freedom of expression in the future.

Facts

On October 5, 2023, Marco Sifuentes Quintana, a journalist and director of the digital media outlet La Encerrona, published a YouTube video titled “ROSSELLI AMURUZ: Viajes, lujos y millones. ESPECIAL de #LaEncerrona.”[1] In the video, Sifuentes presented information regarding the alleged business dealings of Peruvian Congresswoman Rosselli Amuruz and her family in various sectors, including real estate, education, and culture.

That same day, YouTube notified Sifuentes via email that the video had been removed for violating its “personal identification policy,” which prohibits sharing or encouraging the dissemination of private information, such as home addresses, email addresses, login credentials, phone numbers, passport numbers, medical records, or banking information. [para. 3] Sifuentes appealed the decision; however, YouTube upheld the removal, reaffirming that the content violated its personal identification policy.

As a result, Sifuentes filed an amparo lawsuit against Google LLC (owner of YouTube) before the Judiciary of Peru, requesting “the annulment of Google LLC’s decision to remove the video about Congresswoman Rosselli Amuruz, which had been uploaded to his personal account on October 5, 2023, and its reinstatement on the platform without restrictions.” [para. 1] Sifuentes argued that the removal of the video constituted a violation of his right to freedom of expression, as Google LLC had not provided a legal basis for its personal identification policy nor explained the imperative public interest behind the restriction imposed on his content. Furthermore, the journalist maintained that the dissemination of the information in the video was of public interest, as it would allow for the evaluation of potential conflicts of interest in which Congresswoman Amuruz might have engaged while in office.

For its part, Google LLC responded to the lawsuit by arguing that there was no actual violation of Sifuentes’ right to freedom of expression, since the video was available on his YouTube channel and could be viewed without restrictions. The company contended that the lawsuit lacked merit, as the request to annul the removal decision was inconsistent with reality, given that the content was fully accessible. Additionally, Google LLC stated that the alleged violation claimed by Sifuentes had ceased before the judicial process began, which, in its view, rendered the lawsuit inadmissible.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DEJ3c3r1hk

Decision Overview

The Fifth Constitutional Court of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima had to determine whether the temporary removal of a video published on YouTube by journalist Marco Sifuentes, which denounced potential conflicts of interest involving Congresswoman Rosselli Amuruz, constituted a violation of his right to freedom of expression under the Constitution of Peru. The central issue before the court was whether the temporary restriction of access to the video on YouTube, enforced by Google LLC under its “personal identification” policy, illegitimately affected Sifuentes’ right to freedom of expression.

Journalist Sifuentes argued that YouTube’s removal of the video violated his right to freedom of expression, as the information in the report had clear public interest, exposing potential conflicts of interest of a sitting congresswoman. He maintained that the restriction imposed by Google LLC not only affected his individual right to inform, but also the collective right of society to receive information about the actions of a public official. Furthermore, he emphasized that the defendant company did not specify the specific legal basis for its “personal identification” policy, nor did it justify why its enforcement in this case was necessary and proportionate.

For its part, Google LLC argued that there was no actual violation of the plaintiff’s freedom of expression, as the video in question was once again available on YouTube without restrictions at the time the case was being decided. The company contended that the lawsuit lacked merit, since the removal of the video had been temporary, and access to the content had been restored before the judicial proceedings began. It also claimed that Sifuentes’ request to nullify the removal decision was inconsistent with the facts, as the content was already accessible, and therefore, the lawsuit should be declared inadmissible.

The Court analyzed the case under the Peruvian Constitution, particularly the right to freedom of expression and its individual and collective dimensions observing “freedom of expression ensures that individuals may express and disseminate their ideas, opinions and value judgments, while freedom of information implies the freedom to seek, receive and disseminate information of all kinds truthfully.” [para. 18] Additionally, it referenced international human rights standards, noting that “there is agreement among the different regional systems for the protection of human rights and the universal system, regarding the essential role that freedom of expression plays in the consolidation and dynamics of a democratic society.” [para. 19]  The Court further cited the Inter-American Court of Human Rights case Lagos del Campo v. Peru, which established that “freedom of expression is not exhausted in the theoretical recognition of the right to speak or write, but also inseparably includes the right to use any appropriate means to disseminate one’s thoughts and reach the widest possible audience.” [para. 18]

The Court then recognized that the removal of the video and its subsequent restriction in YouTube’s search engine constituted limitations on Sifuentes’ right to freedom of expression. It noted that these restrictions affected both the dissemination of the information and the public’s access to the content, thereby interfering with the exercise of this fundamental right.

Furthermore, the Court observed that Google LLC “did not deny the temporary restriction of the video on the platform” and that it also failed to adequately justify its initial removal or clearly explain the specific criteria applied to its removal. [para. 22]

Additionally, the Court analyzed how the restrictions impacted the video’s accessibility. It emphasized that, while Sifuentes was able to share the video through a direct link, this method of access was significantly less effective than search engine indexing on YouTube, thereby limiting the general audience’s ability to find the content. Regarding this issue, the court held that “it is very uncommon for YouTube users to access videos of interest through web links while inside the platform.” [para. 23]

Moreover, although the Court confirmed that, at the time of its decision, the video was once again available without restrictions on YouTube, it also underscored that the imposed restriction constituted a temporary violation and that “it is not possible to restore things to the state prior to the harm suffered.” [para. 27] Consequently, it held that the amparo lawsuit should be declared well-founded, in order to prevent the defendant company from engaging in the same conduct in the future.

Finally, the Fifth Constitutional Court of Lima concluded that the temporary restriction of Sifuentes’ video on YouTube violated his right to freedom of expression, as it constituted an unjustified interference that affected the dissemination of information in the public interest. Accordingly, it ruled in favor of the lawsuit, urging Google LLC to refrain from imposing arbitrary restrictions on freedom of expression on its platform in the future.