{ "source": "https://channelterminated.com/legal/court-decisions/", "title": "Court Decisions on YouTube Terminations and Demonetization: Every Documented Case", "license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "updated": "2026-10-10", "tables": [ { "table": 1, "columns": [ "Case", "Court", "Date", "Docket / citation", "What the creator claimed", "Outcome", "Holding (one sentence)", "Source" ], "rows": [ { "Case": "United States – creators lost in every decided case" }, { "Case": "Prager University v. Google LLC", "Court": "U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit", "Date": "February 26, 2020", "Docket / citation": "951 F.3d 991", "What the creator claimed": "First Amendment claims (YouTube as a state actor / public forum) and a Lanham Act claim", "Outcome": "Dismissal affirmed – creator lost", "Holding (one sentence)": "YouTube is not a state actor and its platform is not a public forum; the Lanham Act claim also failed. Section 230 was not decided in this ruling.", "Source": "Citation only" }, { "Case": "Prager University v. Google LLC", "Court": "California Court of Appeal, Sixth District", "Date": "December 5, 2022", "Docket / citation": "85 Cal.App.5th 1022; H047714", "What the creator claimed": "State-law claims, including breach of the implied covenant of good faith", "Outcome": "Dismissal affirmed – creator lost", "Holding (one sentence)": "The state-law claims are barred by Section 230, and the discretion clause in YouTube’s Terms defeats the implied-covenant claim.", "Source": "Citation only" }, { "Case": "Lewis v. Google LLC", "Court": "N.D. California (2020); Ninth Circuit (affirmed)", "Date": "2020; April 15, 2021", "Docket / citation": "461 F. Supp. 3d 938; 851 F. App’x 723 (citations taken from citing decisions)", "What the creator claimed": "Claims over the removal and demonetization of content", "Outcome": "Dismissed; affirmed – creator lost", "Holding (one sentence)": "The Terms expressly allowed removal and demonetization; Section 230 and standing also defeated the claims.", "Source": "Citation only" }, { "Case": "Daniels v. Alphabet Inc.", "Court": "N.D. California", "Date": "March 31, 2021 (dismissal); March 8, 2023 (costs)", "Docket / citation": "5:20-cv-04687", "What the creator claimed": "Claims against Alphabet over YouTube moderation decisions", "Outcome": "Dismissed; creator ordered to pay $38,576 in fees", "Holding (one sentence)": "The claims failed under Section 230(c)(1) and (c)(2)(A); the court called the suit “frivolous from the outset” and set Google’s attorneys’ fees at $38,576, payable by the plaintiff.", "Source": "Citation only" }, { "Case": "Divino Group LLC v. Google LLC", "Court": "N.D. California", "Date": "July 5, 2023", "Docket / citation": "5:19-cv-04749", "What the creator claimed": "Discrimination and related claims", "Outcome": "Last claim dismissed – creators lost; appeal outcome not verified", "Holding (one sentence)": "The last remaining claim was dismissed for good; the discrimination claims had already failed on Section 230. We could not verify the outcome of any appeal.", "Source": "Citation only" }, { "Case": "Newman v. Google LLC", "Court": "N.D. California", "Date": "August 17, 2023", "Docket / citation": "3:20-cv-04011", "What the creator claimed": "Breach of contract and related claims", "Outcome": "Dismissed with prejudice – creators lost; appeal outcome not verified", "Holding (one sentence)": "A contractual promise was adequately alleged, but a breach of it was not; the case was dismissed with prejudice. We could not verify the outcome of any appeal.", "Source": "Citation only" }, { "Case": "Mercola.com v. Google", "Court": "U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit", "Date": "May 29, 2024", "Docket / citation": "No. 23-2608", "What the creator claimed": "Breach of contract: termination without the “reasonable advance notice” mentioned in the Terms", "Outcome": "Dismissal affirmed – creator lost", "Holding (one sentence)": "The advance-notice clause applies to changes to the service or the Terms, not to terminations.", "Source": "Citation only" }, { "Case": "Calise v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (not a YouTube case)", "Court": "U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit", "Date": "June 4, 2024", "Docket / citation": "No. 22-15910", "What the creator claimed": "Contract and other claims against Meta – listed here only as the boundary of Section 230", "Outcome": "Boundary case: contract duties not barred", "Holding (one sentence)": "Duties a platform expressly takes on in its contract are not barred by Section 230(c)(1) – the narrow opening a creator would need, which YouTube cases have so far not fit (see Hall, 2025).", "Source": "Citation only" }, { "Case": "Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (not a creator case)", "Court": "U.S. Supreme Court", "Date": "July 1, 2024", "Docket / citation": "603 U.S. 707", "What the creator claimed": "Challenges to Texas and Florida laws regulating platform content moderation", "Outcome": "Vacated and remanded – no ruling on the laws themselves", "Holding (one sentence)": "Content curation is protected editorial activity of the platforms; the Court neither upheld nor struck down the Texas and Florida laws.", "Source": "Citation only" }, { "Case": "Kennedy v. Google", "Court": "U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit", "Date": "August 26, 2024", "Docket / citation": "No. 23-3411", "What the creator claimed": "First Amendment claim; preliminary injunction sought", "Outcome": "Injunction denied – creator lost", "Holding (one sentence)": "YouTube is not a state actor; the preliminary injunction was denied.", "Source": "Citation only" }, { "Case": "Ray v. Google", "Court": "U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit", "Date": "July 23, 2025", "Docket / citation": "No. 23-3987", "What the creator claimed": "Partner Program payment claims: compensation per view", "Outcome": "Dismissal affirmed – creator lost", "Holding (one sentence)": "Neither the YouTube Partner Program terms, the Terms of Service nor the AdSense terms promise payment per view.", "Source": "Citation only" }, { "Case": "Trump v. YouTube (settlement, not a judgment)", "Court": "N.D. California", "Date": "Settlement of September 29, 2025", "Docket / citation": "4:21-cv-08009", "What the creator claimed": "Settled before any ruling on the merits; the claims are not documented in our sources", "Outcome": "Settled for $24.5 million – no judgment", "Holding (one sentence)": "The settlement paid $24.5 million, $22 million of it to the Trust for the National Mall, and “shall not constitute an admission of liability”; no court decided the merits.", "Source": "Citation only" }, { "Case": "Hall v. YouTube", "Court": "N.D. California", "Date": "November 24, 2025", "Docket / citation": "3:24-cv-04071", "What the creator claimed": "Breach of contract based on YouTube’s public statements; other claims", "Outcome": "Dismissed – creator lost", "Holding (one sentence)": "YouTube has broad discretion to terminate; “generalized public statements of intent do not create enforceable contractual promises”; Section 230 also applied.", "Source": "Citation only" }, { "Case": "Song Fi, Inc. v. Google, Inc.", "Court": "U.S. District Court, District of Columbia", "Date": "October 29, 2014", "Docket / citation": "No. 14-1283 (reporter citation not verified by us)", "What the creator claimed": "Creator’s claims against Google, filed in Washington, D.C.", "Outcome": "Transferred to California – forum clause enforced", "Holding (one sentence)": "The forum-selection clause in YouTube’s Terms was enforced and the case transferred to California.", "Source": "Citation only" }, { "Case": "United Kingdom" }, { "Case": "Robertson v Google LLC", "Court": "Court of Appeal (England and Wales)", "Date": "October 7, 2025", "Docket / citation": "[2025] EWCA Civ 1262", "What the creator claimed": "Claim by a terminated creator against Google LLC, including breach of contract", "Outcome": "Claim failed on procedure – creator lost", "Holding (one sentence)": "Service of the claim on Google LLC in the United States was defective because form N510 was missing and no relief was granted; the court indicated that a fresh contract claim within the six-year limitation period might remain possible.", "Source": "Citation only" }, { "Case": "Robertson v Google LLC (permission to appeal)", "Court": "UK Supreme Court", "Date": "December 17, 2025", "Docket / citation": "Application for permission to appeal from [2025] EWCA Civ 1262", "What the creator claimed": "Permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision", "Outcome": "Permission refused", "Holding (one sentence)": "The application “does not raise an arguable point of law”; the Court of Appeal’s decision stands.", "Source": "Citation only" }, { "Case": "EU / Germany – YouTube cases" }, { "Case": "OLG Bamberg (YouTube)", "Court": "Higher Regional Court Bamberg, urgent proceedings", "Date": "July 28, 2025", "Docket / citation": "4 U 62/25 e", "What the creator claimed": "Creator sought reinstatement of three channels terminated without warning for “spam, deceptive practices and scams” and later for “ circumvention ”", "Outcome": "Channels to be reinstated (interim order, limited until January 31, 2027) – user prevailed", "Holding (one sentence)": "Continuing to use separate, pre-existing channels is not circumvention; urgency was accepted because the creator lives from the channel and loses reach and income the longer the block lasts.", "Source": "Full text" }, { "Case": "OLG Dresden (YouTube) – €100,000 fine", "Court": "Higher Regional Court Dresden", "Date": "June 29, 2021", "Docket / citation": "4 W 396/21", "What the creator claimed": "Enforcement of an earlier court order that YouTube implemented late", "Outcome": "€100,000 administrative fine against YouTube – user prevailed", "Holding (one sentence)": "Restoring a video late after a court had prohibited its removal and the warning was a serious breach of the order and justified a fine of €100,000.", "Source": "Case reference" }, { "Case": "LG Köln (YouTube) – videos and warning", "Court": "Regional Court Cologne, urgent proceedings", "Date": "October 11, 2021", "Docket / citation": "28 O 350/21; 28 O 351/21", "What the creator claimed": "Creator challenged the deletion of longer videos and a warning", "Outcome": "Deletion and warning prohibited (interim order; value in dispute €10,000) – user prevailed", "Holding (one sentence)": "Without naming the specific passages at issue, YouTube could not delete longer videos that also contained permissible statements or issue a warning; the win was on formal grounds, with no assessment of the videos’ content.", "Source": "Full text" }, { "Case": "OLG Dresden (YouTube) – second channel", "Court": "Higher Regional Court Dresden (appeal withdrawn; first-instance judgment final)", "Date": "Press release of April 14, 2021", "Docket / citation": "4 U 2135/20", "What the creator claimed": "Creator challenged the termination of a second channel that YouTube had tolerated for years and then ended by reference to an earlier channel termination", "Outcome": "Termination invalid – user prevailed; YouTube withdrew its appeal", "Holding (one sentence)": "YouTube had forfeited its right to terminate a second channel it had knowingly tolerated for years; the first-instance judgment became final.", "Source": "Press release" }, { "Case": "KG Berlin (YouTube)", "Court": "Court of Appeal Berlin (Kammergericht), urgent proceedings", "Date": "March 22, 2019", "Docket / citation": "10 W 172/18", "What the creator claimed": "Creator sought reinstatement of a political video deleted as hate speech", "Outcome": "Video to be restored – user prevailed", "Holding (one sentence)": "A permissible expression of opinion may not be removed solely by reference to the Community Guidelines .", "Source": "Case reference" }, { "Case": "OLG Dresden (YouTube) – changed terms", "Court": "Higher Regional Court Dresden, urgent proceedings", "Date": "April 20, 2021", "Docket / citation": "4 W 118/21", "What the creator claimed": "Channel with almost 100,000 subscribers challenged a video removal and a warning", "Outcome": "Removal and warning prohibited (value in dispute €7,500) – user prevailed", "Holding (one sentence)": "Changed terms of use apply only where there is a valid reservation of the right to change them or a change agreement; amended guidelines do not apply automatically.", "Source": "Secondary report (not linked)" }, { "Case": "LG Karlsruhe (YouTube) – third strike", "Court": "Regional Court Karlsruhe, urgent proceedings", "Date": "January 5, 2022", "Docket / citation": "Not published (known from a media report)", "What the creator claimed": "Channel deleted after a third strike without a hearing; an already reinstated video had been warned again", "Outcome": "Channel to be restored – user prevailed, according to a media report", "Holding (one sentence)": "According to the report, the court ordered the channel to be restored in urgent proceedings; no official text has been published.", "Source": "Media report" }, { "Case": "LG Köln (YouTube Partner Program)", "Court": "Regional Court Cologne, urgent proceedings", "Date": "July 13, 2021", "Docket / citation": "Not published (known from a media report)", "What the creator claimed": "Channel excluded from the YouTube Partner Program", "Outcome": "Interim order against the demonetization – user prevailed, according to a media report", "Holding (one sentence)": "According to the report, YouTube had to specify within seven days which videos violated which monetization policy.", "Source": "Media report" }, { "Case": "LG Düsseldorf, antitrust chamber (YouTube)", "Court": "Regional Court Düsseldorf, urgent proceedings", "Date": "July 1, 2026", "Docket / citation": "36 O 80/26 [Kart]", "What the creator claimed": "Commercial channel challenged the blocking of videos", "Outcome": "Video block prohibited – user prevailed, according to a report by the applicant’s counsel", "Holding (one sentence)": "A blanket reference to a guideline is not enough to block videos; no official full text was available at the time of writing.", "Source": "Trade association report" }, { "Case": "OLG Hamm (YouTube) – strike system", "Court": "Higher Regional Court Hamm, main proceedings", "Date": "June 3, 2025", "Docket / citation": "21 U 62/23", "What the creator claimed": "Creator sued over the graded strike system and the lack of a hearing before sanctions", "Outcome": "Claim dismissed – creator lost", "Holding (one sentence)": "Concretely defined escalation stages without a hearing at the first violation are not objectionable, and nothing different follows from the Digital Services Act ; attorneys’ fees are usually recoverable only if the user first contacted YouTube directly.", "Source": "Full text" }, { "Case": "EU / Germany – decisions on other platforms that German YouTube cases rely on" }, { "Case": "BGH – Facebook (leading decision)", "Court": "Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof)", "Date": "July 29, 2021", "Docket / citation": "III ZR 179/20; III ZR 192/20", "What the creator claimed": "Facebook users challenged post deletions and account suspensions under the platform’s terms", "Outcome": "Users prevailed", "Holding (one sentence)": "The deletion and suspension clauses were invalid under § 307 BGB: platforms may set their own rules but must in principle inform users in advance of an intended suspension, state the reason and allow a reply followed by a fresh decision – the basis of almost all later German YouTube cases.", "Source": "Press release" }, { "Case": "OLG Dresden – social network", "Court": "Higher Regional Court Dresden", "Date": "March 8, 2022", "Docket / citation": "4 U 1050/21", "What the creator claimed": "User challenged the permanent deactivation of a profile", "Outcome": "Profile to be restored including all connections – user prevailed", "Holding (one sentence)": "An account may be permanently deactivated only after a prior warning, even if posts had been deleted before.", "Source": "Full text (database)" }, { "Case": "OLG Karlsruhe – Facebook", "Court": "Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe", "Date": "February 4, 2022", "Docket / citation": "10 U 17/20", "What the creator claimed": "User challenged the termination and suspension of an account", "Outcome": "User prevailed", "Holding (one sentence)": "Termination or suspension of an account is in principle permissible only after a prior warning.", "Source": "Legal press report" }, { "Case": "LG München II – Instagram", "Court": "Regional Court Munich II, urgent proceedings", "Date": "December 16, 2020", "Docket / citation": "11 O 5166/20", "What the creator claimed": "User’s profile was deactivated without a stated reason", "Outcome": "Profile to be restored immediately (fine of up to €250,000 threatened; value in dispute €7,500) – user prevailed", "Holding (one sentence)": "Where no reason for the block is apparent and none is given despite a request, the deactivated profile must be restored without delay.", "Source": "Secondary report (not linked)" }, { "Case": "OLG München – Facebook", "Court": "Higher Regional Court Munich", "Date": "August 24, 2018", "Docket / citation": "18 W 1294/18", "What the creator claimed": "User challenged the deletion of comments", "Outcome": "Deletion prohibited – user prevailed", "Holding (one sentence)": "A platform’s “virtual house right” does not allow it to remove statements protected by freedom of expression, and a clause under which the platform alone judges violations unreasonably disadvantages users.", "Source": "Legal press report" }, { "Case": "LG Frankfurt am Main – Facebook", "Court": "Regional Court Frankfurt, urgent proceedings", "Date": "May 14, 2018", "Docket / citation": "2-03 O 182/18", "What the creator claimed": "User challenged a comment deletion and a 30-day block", "Outcome": "Block and deletion prohibited – user prevailed", "Holding (one sentence)": "The statement was a permissible opinion; fundamental rights have an indirect effect between user and platform – one of the first interim orders against an account block.", "Source": "Secondary report (not linked)" }, { "Case": "BVerfG – Facebook", "Court": "Federal Constitutional Court", "Date": "May 22, 2019", "Docket / citation": "1 BvQ 42/19", "What the creator claimed": "Applicant sought provisional unblocking of a page before the 2019 European election", "Outcome": "Provisional unblocking ordered – applicant prevailed", "Holding (one sentence)": "Fundamental rights can have an indirect effect against networks with market power; how far that goes was left open.", "Source": "Full text" }, { "Case": "LG Hildesheim – Amazon", "Court": "Regional Court Hildesheim, urgent proceedings", "Date": "June 26, 2019", "Docket / citation": "3 O 179/19", "What the creator claimed": "Seller blocked without prior warning after a blanket manipulation accusation", "Outcome": "Block to be lifted – user prevailed", "Holding (one sentence)": "A clause allowing suspension without a reason is invalid under § 307 BGB; a blanket accusation and a block without warning did not hold.", "Source": "Secondary report (not linked)" }, { "Case": "OLG Köln – social network (urgency)", "Court": "Higher Regional Court Cologne, urgent proceedings", "Date": "May 9, 2019", "Docket / citation": "15 W 70/18", "What the creator claimed": "User sought an interim order against an account block; urgency was disputed", "Outcome": "Block to be refrained from – user prevailed", "Holding (one sentence)": "As a rule, only waiting more than one month before applying harms urgency – expressly also in the case of an account block.", "Source": "Full text" }, { "Case": "OLG Celle – Facebook", "Court": "Higher Regional Court Celle, urgent proceedings", "Date": "October 4, 2024", "Docket / citation": "5 U 228/24", "What the creator claimed": "User sought an interim order; the platform argued main proceedings should be awaited", "Outcome": "User prevailed in urgent proceedings", "Holding (one sentence)": "Urgency was accepted because a decision in main proceedings could not be obtained in time, given service abroad.", "Source": "Full text (database)" }, { "Case": "OLG Brandenburg – eBay", "Court": "Higher Regional Court Brandenburg, urgent proceedings", "Date": "November 12, 2008", "Docket / citation": "6 W 183/08", "What the creator claimed": "Trader with high daily turnover was blocked", "Outcome": "Account to be reactivated – user prevailed", "Holding (one sentence)": "No contractual ground for the block existed, and the threat to the trader’s livelihood justified an immediate order.", "Source": "Secondary report (not linked)" }, { "Case": "LG Köln – music streaming takedowns", "Court": "Regional Court Cologne", "Date": "January 9, 2025", "Docket / citation": "14 O 387/24", "What the creator claimed": "Musician sued a former label that had his tracks removed from two streaming services through takedown requests", "Outcome": "Interim order against the party filing the takedowns confirmed – user prevailed", "Holding (one sentence)": "Unjustified copyright takedown requests are an unlawful interference with an established business, applying the principles on unjustified IP warnings – not a YouTube case, but relevant for unjustified copyright strikes.", "Source": "Full text" }, { "Case": "OLG Frankfurt am Main – private Facebook account", "Court": "Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, urgent proceedings", "Date": "March 27, 2023", "Docket / citation": "17 W 8/23", "What the creator claimed": "Private user sought urgent unblocking of a personal account", "Outcome": "Urgent application rejected – user lost", "Holding (one sentence)": "For a purely privately used account, waiting for main proceedings is reasonable; the court expressly distinguished cases involving the loss of a five-figure follower count.", "Source": "Legal press report" }, { "Case": "OLG Nürnberg – commercial influencer account", "Court": "Higher Regional Court Nuremberg", "Date": "August 19, 2025", "Docket / citation": "3 W 1224/25 Kart", "What the creator claimed": "Commercially active influencer sought relief against an account block in Germany", "Outcome": "No German jurisdiction – user lost", "Holding (one sentence)": "For a commercially active influencer the court denied German jurisdiction – a reminder that the choice of court and legal basis decides cases before the merits are reached.", "Source": "Full text" }, { "Case": "Canada" }, { "Case": "Douez v. Facebook, Inc.", "Court": "Supreme Court of Canada", "Date": "June 23, 2017", "Docket / citation": "2017 SCC 33", "What the creator claimed": "Consumer sued under provincial privacy law; Facebook invoked the California forum-selection clause", "Outcome": "Forum clause not enforced – consumer may sue in Canada", "Holding (one sentence)": "There was “strong cause” not to enforce the clause: a standard-form contract, a statutory privacy claim and a gross inequality of bargaining power – no general rule, and untested for commercial creators.", "Source": "Citation only" }, { "Case": "Australia" }, { "Case": "No documented court decision on a YouTube channel termination", "Court": "—", "Date": "As of October 2026", "Docket / citation": "—", "What the creator claimed": "—", "Outcome": "No case found", "Holding (one sentence)": "Penalties for unfair terms in standard-form consumer and small-business contracts have applied since November 9, 2023; the ACCC’s final Digital Platform Services Inquiry report of June 23, 2025 is reported to recommend mandatory internal dispute resolution and an external ombuds scheme, but no such law is in force.", "Source": "Citation only" }, { "Case": "Out-of-court bodies – not courts, and not binding on Google in the EU" }, { "Case": "Appeals Centre Europe – transparency report (not a court)", "Court": "Certified DSA Article 21 body, Ireland", "Date": "May 2026 report (covers April 2025 – March 2026)", "Docket / citation": "—", "What the creator claimed": "User disputes against YouTube moderation decisions", "Outcome": "488 admissible YouTube disputes – an admissibility count, not decisions", "Holding (one sentence)": "Across all platforms (10,200+ decisions), 12% of decisions upheld and 17% overturned the platform after a substantive review, 72% were default decisions because the platform did not provide the content, and where content could be reviewed 59% went against the platform – a cross-platform figure; the decisions are not binding on Google.", "Source": "Report (PDF)" }, { "Case": "Google’s DSA transparency reports for YouTube – Article 21 disputes (not a court)", "Court": "Google’s own reporting, EU only", "Date": "H2 2025 (published February 27, 2026); H1 2026 (published August 28, 2026)", "Docket / citation": "—", "What the creator claimed": "Disputes brought to certified bodies against YouTube decisions", "Outcome": "H2 2025: 449 disputes, 210 “reversed”, median ≈ 102 days · H1 2026: 932 disputes, 434 “reversed”, median ≈ 57 days", "Holding (one sentence)": "Google states that it “is not bound by any decisions made by these out-of-court settlement bodies”; its “reversed” figures include default decisions, and the share reported as “implemented” (0.48% and 0%) is hard to interpret.", "Source": "Report files" }, { "Case": "Individual dispute-body decision reported by Dexerto (not a court)", "Court": "Certified DSA dispute body (not named in the report)", "Date": "Reported December 1, 2025", "Docket / citation": "—", "What the creator claimed": "Automotive channel terminated for spam", "Outcome": "The body found the termination unjustified; YouTube did not implement the decision, according to Dexerto", "Holding (one sentence)": "The report’s headline calls it a “lawsuit”; it was not – an out-of-court decision is not a judgment, and Google is not bound by it.", "Source": "Media report (not linked)" }, { "Case": "Grievance Appellate Committee , India (not a court)", "Court": "Statutory online appeal body under the IT Rules 2021 (MeitY)", "Date": "Live counter on October 9, 2026", "Docket / citation": "Rule 3A, IT Rules 2021", "What the creator claimed": "Appeals against decisions of a platform’s Grievance Officer", "Outcome": "66,090 appeals received, 14,853 disposed of (portal counter)", "Holding (one sentence)": "An appeal must be filed within 30 days; the GAC “shall make an endeavour” to decide within 30 days, and the platform must comply with its decision (Rule 3A(7)) – an administrative body, not a court.", "Source": "GAC portal" } ] } ] }