Content Moderation, Content Regulation / Censorship, Digital Rights
NetChoice v. Attorney General, State of Florida
Nominations Are Now Open for the 2024 Columbia Global Freedom of Expression Prizes. Learn more and nominate here.
Decision Pending Expands Expression
Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
The Regional Court of Cologne (Landgericht Köln), Germany, issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting YouTube from deleting a video containing medical information about Covid-19. After a user uploaded a video on YouTube with reports and interviews about Covid-19, the platform deleted the video. YouTube did not provide information about the reasons why it deleted the video. The user requested a preliminary injunction to prevent YouTube from deleting the content. The Court held that YouTube was contractually obligated to upload the user’s video and that its deletion was not justified, as YouTube did not provide any reasons for it.
A user uploaded a 26-minute-long video on the online video-sharing platform YouTube with interviews and reports about Covid-19. The company deleted the video stating that it violated its guidelines on medical misinformation, without specifying the offending content, and issued a warning on the user’s account.
The user applied for a preliminary injunction on October 11, 2021, requesting the Court to prohibit YouTube from deleting the video.
The central issue for the 28th Civil Chamber of the Regional Court of Cologne was whether YouTube had the right to delete the applicant’s video —which included interviews and reports about Covid-19—and issue warnings on users’ accounts, or whether it was contractually obligated to host the video and remove the warning since it did not specify why the content violated the platform’s community guidelines.
YouTube argued that it deleted the video because it violated the platform’s guidelines on medical misinformation.
At the outset of its analysis, the Court held that the applicant had a claim against YouTube based on the contractual obligation between the parties. According to the contract, the Court argued, YouTube must refrain from deleting videos and from issuing a warning on the user’s account because of the uploaded content. The Court argued that the parties mutually agreed that YouTube provides the possibility of uploading videos. This obligation was violated by the removal of the user’s video.
The Court underscored YouTube’s failure to inform either the applicant or the Court about which passage of the video (allegedly) violated its community guidelines. This made it impossible for the Court to review the decision. For the Court, deleting a video without specifying which specific passage infringed on the platform’s guidelines would only be permissible in the case of “a short video with obvious medical misinformation recognizable at first glance.” [para. 6] Yet, this was not the case since the contested video was very long (26 minutes) and contained many clearly permissible statements.
The Court, therefore, granted the applicant’s preliminary injunction and ordered YouTube to refrain from deleting the contested video and issuing warnings to the applicant.
Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
In this decision, the Court held that YouTube cannot delete a video without specifying the passages that infringe on the platform’s guidelines. This increases YouTube’s transparency obligations towards users in its content moderation processes. The Court also argued that general and abstract assessments of content, such as the one performed by YouTube, were not sufficient to establish a violation of the platform’s guidelines. This judgment is a good example of jurisprudence that increases the procedural standards for content moderation decisions while refraining from questions of substance.
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.