“[T]he mere fact of an emergency does not increase constitutional power, nor diminish constitutional restrictions.”

ACA International v. Maura Healey, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, No. 20-10767-RGS (U.S.D.C. Mass.) May 6, 2020.


Among other state measures taken during the COVID-19 emergency, the Attorney General of Massachusetts promulgated measures prohibiting credit and collections agencies from initiating telephone calls or lawsuits to collect debts. Many creditors were exempted from these regulations that operate against entities deemed essential by bank regulators.

The Association of Credit and Collections Professionals (ACA) sought injunctive relief in federal court challenging the regulations on first amendment speech and petition grounds and state law.

The court examined the traditional grounds for injunctive relief in matters concerning protected First Amendment interests, concerning which any infringement presumes irreparable harm: the likelihood that the moving party will succeed on the merits, the balance of equities and the public interest. The court declined to decide claims premised on asserted violations of state law, mindful that precedent limits federal courts’ powers over state officials to matters of federal law.

The intermediate scrutiny applicable to commercial speech gained no favor for the state, as the court could not credit the Attorney General’s unsupported beliefs that citizens would be more vulnerable than otherwise during an emergency or that banning telephone calls would ensure citizens well being or ensure domestic tranquility.

As extant state law regulations already circumscribe creditor activities, and incorporate federal protections, the court could not find a substantial government interest in redundant measures.

Neither could the court justify an outright ban on initiating litigation because some legislative litigation burdens some access to courts. Simply preserving rights until the unknown end of the emergency, particularly when several types of creditors are exempted from the regulations, is not sufficient to justify outright denial of petitionary rights, stating: “[t]he mere fact of an emergency does not increase constitutional power, nor diminish constitutional restrictions.” (Slip op. 25-26).

In balancing the equities, the court observed that debtors have substantial extant protections against unlawful creditor activity, while the emergency regulations could force some creditors out of business, a hardship underscored by medical entities’ dependence on such agencies to recover funds.

The court entered a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of the emergency regulations.

ACA International v. Healey, Attorney General. TRO Order May 6, 2020

Eternal Vigilance: Depictions of Press Freedoms and Hazards Around the World

A bit out of the ordinary for JustLawful, but the link below, created by VisualCapitalist.com, provides striking depictions of the ease (or not!) of disseminating information around the world.  Moreover, for those accustomed to observing the lives of the White House Press Corps (i.e., find seat, observe, report), it is deceptively easy to form the belief that reporting is always that cozy.  Not so!

And in further discoveries, the oft-repeated phrase alluded to here, i.e., “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” has not been confirmed by the keepers of the Jeffersonian flame, who offer that the expression was in widespread use in the 19th century.  With no pride of authorship found to reside in founding father Jefferson, the phrase may be more accurately attributed to Irish lawyer, judge, and firebrand John Philpot Curran.  Those dismayed by the unending onslaughts of the digital age may find respite in the slower, yet potent, pace of the 1817 Curran memoir linked below.

Mapped:  Press Freedom Around the World.  Routley, N. Visual Capitalist.  May 2, 2020

Thomas Jefferson Foundation:  “Eternal Vigilance” May Be  a Spurious Quotation

Minnesota Legal History Project_.Memoirs of the Legal, Literary & Political Life of John Philpot Curran

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surveillance Without Surcease: Massachusetts’ Highest Court to Review Constitutionality of Continuous, Warrantless Videorecording of Criminal Defendants’ Houses

Nelson Mora, et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, SJC-12890.  Oral argument scheduled for May 5, 2020.

Related:   Commonwealth v. McCarthy, SJC-12750.  Opinion issued April 16, 2020.


Defendants were arrested as part of an ongoing state effort to interrupt commerce in drugs.  As part of that effort, police installed, without warrants, video cameras in public spaces outside defendants’ houses.  These “poll cameras” permitted uninterrupted video recording of the outside of these houses and were equipped with zoom features to permit closer scrutiny.  

Defendants moved to suppress the video evidence as violative of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 14 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  The Superior Court denied relief, finding that defendants have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the exteriors of their homes, which were plainly visible to the world.

Interlocutory review was sought and granted.

Appellants/Defendants argue that incessant videorecording denies defendants’ constitutionally promised privacy interests, which are not defined with reference to brightline distinctions between exteriors and interiors, but rather with respect to the reasonable expectations of privacy enunciated in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1969).  Static, unceasing and warrantless mechanical surveillance is a search which intrudes beyond any reasonable bounds of police powers.  

Defendants are supported by several civil rights and technology advocacy entities, who join in characterizing the surveillance in issue as “Orwellian.”

The state stands firm in its view that that which is in plain view is not private, and that even if issues were to be found in these searches, error should be excused on the basis of the police’s good faith.

Just weeks ago the Supreme Judicial Court outlined constitutional parameters of static camera recordings of vehicles permanently placed at the ends of bridges linking the main land of Massachusetts with Cape Cod.   Following an extensive review of the foundational ideas that support the law of searches and privacy, and after concluding that the camera surveillance in issue could be a search, the court found no constitutional violation as the car in question could be seen without technology and any intrusion was of limited duration.   Chief Justice Gant wrote separately in concurrence, suggesting that the course going forward might be better served if authorizations based on reasonable suspicion and subsequent probable cause were obtained in advance of surveillance. 

Appellants/Defendants embrace McCarthy as pointing the way for a decision in their favor.  The state has tradition on its side: many considerations of poll cameras have found their use to be constitutionally innocuous, with only a few courts demanding that this form of surveillance  be cabinned by time limits.

Justlawful’s Observation.  The “in plain sight” argument offered by the state, if woodenly applied, could lead to results that would undermine Katz.  Moreover, the argument that recording shows only what a passerby might see becomes problematic if human rather than mechanical supervision were in issue.  Were a person to stand in observation of a residence without interruption, the homeowner or resident might well feel intruded upon, even if the onlooker could see only the exterior of the home, and might be justified in seeking injunctive relief to cause the behavior to cease.   

Briefs of the Parties

Commonwealth v. Mora – SJC-12890 Appellants’ Brief

Commonwealth v. Mora — Commonwealth’s Brief

Commonwealth v. Mora — Appellants’ Reply Brief

The McCarthy Decision

2020 04 16 Commonwealth v. McCarthy SJC-12750

For those fond of legal history, an 1890 Harvard Law Review article outlining Warren and Brandeis’ Views of Privacy

Warren and Brandeis, _The Right to Privacy_

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Wheels on the Bus Go Round the Supreme Court No More: Certiorari Denied in Challenge to Transit Authority’s Ban on Religious Advertisements

Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, No. 18-1455.  Petition for Certiorari denied on April 6, 2020.  


In connection with the Court’s denial of the petition for certiorari, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, issued a statement which leaves no doubt that the two would conclude that the transit authority’s current ban on religious advertising on its buses violates the First Amendment as it is reflects government engagement in impermissible viewpoint discrimination. 

Certiorari was denied because Justice Kavenaugh was involved in the case when he served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  As he could not participate in reviewing a case he was involved in, deciding the case with less than a full complement of justices appeared unwise.

The decisions below violate Supreme Court precedent, Justice Gorsuch noted, as the Court has determined that “religion” includes both subject matter and viewpoint.  Once subjects are opened for discussion, religious views cannot be suppressed:

…[O]nce the government allows a subject to be discussed, it cannot silence religious views on that topic…[O]nce the government declares Christmas open for commentary, it can hardly turn around and mute religious speech on a subject that so naturally invites it… [The government] cannot do is what it did here—permit a subject sure to inspire religious views…and then suppress those views. The First Amendment requires governments to protect religious viewpoints, not single them out for silencing.

–Statement respecting denial of certiorari at pp. 2- 3.

JustLawful aside:  The great benefits of opinions accompanying denials of certiorari is that they not only serve to foretell the future, at least as to some justices’ views, but they also offer a brevity that is scarce in current jurisprudence.

2020 04 06 Certiorari Denied 18-1455 Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (04_06_2020)

Who’s Zoomin’ Who? Pandemic’s Videoconferencing Darling’s Security Failures Alleged to Have Permitted Data Breaches With Each Use

Cullen, et al.  v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc.,  No. 5:20-cv-02155-SVK (N.D. Cal.). Class action complaint filed March 30, 2020.

Taylor, et al. v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-02170 (N.D. Cal.)  Class action complaint filed March 31, 2020. 

Motion to consider cases to be similar filed in the Cullen case on April 8, 2020.  


Videoconferencing exploded exponentially with the COVID-19 pandemic, as a declaration of national emergency and state and local stay-at-home orders inspired ingenuity in communications for business, personal, health and other reasons.  

“Zoom,” as the platform is known, emerged as a most popular platform, somehow almost immediately eclipsing other platforms such as Google Meet.

In signing on to use Zoom, Zoom represented to users that their privacy interests would be protected.  For health care practitioners, Zoom permitted the creation of business associate agreements that would, ostensibly, aid in attaining compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

All to the good, one might think.

Except Zoom seems to have been incorrect in its privacy and data assurances.

Zoom’s application sent data identifying the user to Facebook every time the application was downloaded and every time the user logged in.

This discovery irked more than health care providers, for whom the federal government’s relaxation of compliance requirements for telehealth during the COVID-19 crisis did nothing to relieve providers of ethical obligations to clients to maintain confidentiality.

Likewise distressed were non-professionals whose functioning depends on assurances of confidentiality.

Along with disclosures about the software insecurity came a flood of pranksters practicing “zoom bombing,” interrupting online meetings with pornography and toxic messaging.  Some churches were not amused. 

Within days of discovery and disclosure two class actions were filed in federal court in the Northern District of California.  The complaints allege violations of several consumer and privacy protection statutes and aver that even if Zoom Video Communications remedies its technology, it remains responsible for the damage incurred prior to that time.

Since disclosure, Zoom has launched a campaign to underscore its innocence, its concern, and its plans for repair.  Many of the statements come quite close to admissions, perhaps reflecting the confidence of technology scions who are, in their own minds, intent on doing good and refraining from being evil.

Or perhaps Zoom believes that it has so captivated the market that all it needs to do is to appear contrite, fix the application, and move on.  

Simple, but time-honored, security measures not prevalent in the past have come to be required, such as passwords.

And Zoom has hired Facebook’s former security chief to head Zoom’s mitigation maneuvers. 

At this time, it does not appear that Facebook has acknowledged any relationship with Zoom nor is it known whether or how much money was paid to Zoom for user information.

At the same time, Facebook is taking steps to persuade some of the market to use Facebook’s platform rather than Zoom’s.

In addition to private lawsuits, it appears that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and state attorney generals have questioned Zoom’s practices. 

Cyberspace privacy concerns and pointers for managing Zoom have been proffered by non-profits such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The class actions are in their early stages.  With courts either shuttered or (ironically) reliant on videoconferencing for proceedings, it is not known when or if the court will rule on the recently filed motion to treat the Cullen and Taylor cases as related.  An initial case conference in Cullen is scheduled for June 30, 2020.  


Northern District of California Case Information

Cullen, et al. v. Zoom Video Communications, No. 5:20-cv-02155-SVK (N.D. Cal.).

Taylor, et al. v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-02170 (N.D. Cal.)

Related Media

iMore.com, March 27, 2020: Responding to Backlash, Zoom Stops Sharing User Data with Facebook

New York Times, March 30, 2020: Attorney General Looks Into Zoom’s Privacy Practices

Zoom Blog, April 1, 2020: A Message to Our Users

Forbes, April 2, 2020: Why Zoom Really Needs Better Privacy: $1.9M Orders Show the Government’s COVID-19 Response is Now Relying On It

Electronic Frontier Foundation, April 4, 2020: Harden Your Zoom Settings to Protect Your Privacy and Avoid Trolls

Motley Fool, April 4, 2020: Facebook Wants to Take a Bite Out of Zoom Video’s Growth

Wall Street Journal, April 4, 2020: Zoom CEO: “I really messed up,” on Security as Coronavirus Drove Video Tool’s Appeal

Boston.com, April 7, 2020: Massachusetts Schools, Churches, Have Been Targeted by Hackers on Zoom

Forbes, April 8, 2020: Zoom Brings on Former Facebook Security Head to Fix Privacy Problems

 

 

 

 

 

“Live Free or Die” Validly Circumscribed in Time of Public Health Emergency, New Hampshire Superior Court Finds

Binford, et al. v. Sununu, Governor of the State of New Hampshire, No. 217-2020-cv-00152 (Merrimack Sup. Ct.)

The Superior Court in the State of New Hampshire has denied plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief from the governor’s emergency order prohibiting public gatherings of fifty or more persons during the time of the COVID-19 viral epidemic. 

Plaintiffs challenged the order on federal and New Hampshire Constitutional grounds, arguing that the governor lacked authority to issue an unenforceable order which would interfere with rights of assembly and religion.

The Superior Court denied the plaintiffs’ emergency motion on March 18th, and after hearing, dismissed the case on March 20.  

The court observed that the governor possesses emergency powers which may be used to protect the lives of the public during the present pandemic.  The current use of such powers is all the more apt when of short duration: the emergency order by its terms will expire on April 3.  

The court noted that the governor’s exercise of emergency powers are subject to circumscription by the legislature, and may be addressed by further judicial review should the need arise.

There is no formal written opinion at this time.  The hearing on the motion was closed to the public, but news coverage has been provided from several sources, as an audio record of the hearing has been provided to the press..


Governor’s March 16th Emergency Order

Emergency Motion for Temporary and Permanent Injunctive Relief

Opposition to Motion for Injunctive Relief

Court Upholds Governor’s Order: New Hampshire Union Leader

Court Upholds Ban on Large Gatherings: Seacoast Online

 

Not Exactly the Remedy Plaintiff Had In Mind: Federal Judge Denies Injunctive Relief Against Alleged Unicorn Trademark Infringers, Observing Public Health Crisis is Real, But Unicorn Crisis is Not

Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 20-cv-01666 (N.D. Ill.)


Plaintiff sought an emergency order to bring to a halt alleged infringement on unicorn and elf designs, which if granted would involve third parties domestically and internationally.  The federal court, strapped for resources in light of declared national and state emergencies, brooked plaintiff no mercy when, having been advised that the court would not schedule the hearing as plaintiff requested, plaintiff renewed its demand.

The court’s pointed opinion serves not only as a shot across the bow to litigants demonstrating extraordinary, yet imprudent, zeal in extraordinary times, but offers homespun 19th century legal wisdom:  “About half the practice of a decent lawyer consists in telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop.” 1 Jessup, Elihu Root 133 (1938). Hill v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co., 814 F.2d 1192 (7th Cir. 1987).

Sure to be quoted to litigants and clients alike in coming days.

Just Lawful Chortles, But Frets:  The trial court was well within reason to put counsel on notice that repeatedly pressing its cause would not work, and particularly not in times of emergencies of the court’s and the nation’s own.  Through the quote from Root the court did, in fact, offer counsel a way to soften the blow to the client, albeit sardonically.  

Yet the reliance on ‘national emergency’ may itself soon wear thin.  At the heart of this case, and the court’s order, is the issue of enforceability, not pestiness.  Courts do not like to issue orders that cannot be effectuated, and rightly so. This is particularly true of orders that would affect entities not before the court, which would occur if the relief requested by Art Ask Agency were granted. It would not have consumed a great deal of judicial resources to mention this in the order denying reconsideration of the scheduling order. 

Although counsel everywhere will no doubt make use of this opinion to illustrate to clients what approach not to take at present, no one, and we may hope the courts included, looks forward to expansion of the “national emergency” rationale to cause even further limitations on the process of the courts.

Art Ask Agency v. The Individuals, et al., No. 20-cv-1666 (N.D. Ill.).

 

Some Kind of Hearing, Updated: UConn Student’s Suspension Permanently Vacated, Parameters of New Investigation and Hearing Envisioned, and Student Deemed to Have Prevailed.

John Doe v. University of Connecticut, et al., No. 3:20-cv-00092 (D. Conn.)


A student accused of conduct violations and the University of Connecticut and its officials have reached agreement to dissolve permanently the student’s suspension and to refashion rules and procedures for a new investigation and hearing on the allegations.  The new proceedings, to be completed not later than this month, are intended to provide some due process safeguards seen to have been lacking in initial proceedings. 

The U.S. District Court has entered judgment in accordance with the Consent Order submitted by the parties, with the court to retain jurisdiction to hear any matters relating to that order. 

The university defendants concede that John Doe is the prevailing party in the case and as such is permitted to recoup attorneys’ fees.  The process of determining the amount of the fee award is underway.  

Just Lawful Observation:  The case exemplifies the hazards of college and university administration of investigations and discipline having life long consequences yet operating without the constitutional guarantees promised in federal and state courts. 

The consequences to an accused student deprived of due process are life altering.  To this may be added the financial pressures on universities to be compliant with federal gender parity laws, violation of which will result in loss of funding.  Some believe this pressure has rendered schools incapable of operating without bias.  Moreover, social pressure to vindicate individuals who complain of sexual misconduct is everywhere felt, no less so in colleges and universities.

It occurs to Just Lawful that if ever there were cases that cry out for restorative or reparative justice, it is these cases in which students’ lives implode when activity viewed as consensual by one is viewed as assault by another.   Where remedies may be devised through mediation or learned interventions for both parties, this may be worthy of exploration.  

The costs of these proceedings to students, whether accused or accuser, are not academic in any sense:  at this time John Does’ attorneys’ fees request approaches one hundred thousand dollars.  Few students or their families could shoulder such costs without hardship.

2020 3 20-cv-00092 Consent Order

2020 3 20-cv-00092 Judgment

 

Suitable Accommodations Must Await Another Day: Supreme Court Declines Review of Walgreen Employee’s Religious Discrimination Claim

Patterson v. Walgreen, No. 18-349, 549 U.S. ____ (cert. denied February 24, 2020).


A decades-old Supreme Court case offhandedly announced that the “undue burden” that would relieve employers of any obligation to accommodate an employee’s religion need only be more than de minimus.  Joining in denial of certiorari of an employee’s case against Walgreen, Justices Alito and Thomas would like to revisit the standing precept, particularly where the old decision relied not on the civil rights statute but on federal agency guidance which predated statutory refinements of the definition of ‘religion’.

 

The Solicitor General suggested that other issues are of concern that need review, but the Court does not consider this case to be the proper vehicle.  The Solicitor General has asked whether an employer must offer a partial accommodation where a full accommodation would pose an undue hardship, or whether speculative harm can establish undue harm.  

 

Patterson alleged that Walgreen’s discriminated against him because his religion forbade working on his sabbath.  Walgreen’s routinely accommodated him in scheduling his work but declined to do so when an urgent need arose and it was thought that  accommodation would work an unairmness to another employee.

 

Patterson failed to appear for the requested Saturday work, which precipitated a delay in training Walgreen employees.  Discussion with Patterson was not fruitful. Patterson wanted a guarantee that he would never be asked to work on his sabbath.  He declined consideration of other positions where the issue would not arise. Walgreen’s suspended and later terminated Patterson.

 

The 11th Circuit observed that Patterson had established a prima facie case, leaving for decision on whether Walgreen failed to offer a reasonable accommodation or that Walgreen’s could not offer a reasonable accommodation which would not pose an undue hardship, which hardship can embrace both direct and indirect costs.  

 

An accommodation need not be the one requested by an employee, nor need the employer offer an array of accommodations from which to choose.  The duty to accommodate his match by a countervailing duty on the employee’s part to work with the employers as the employer suggests.

 

The 11th Circuit declined to address in depth the issue of undue hardwhip because Walgrehaten’s had offered Patterson the opportunity to change schedules when practicable or to obtain another position.  Even if undue hardship were considered, however, Patterson would not prevail because Walgreens would have incurred undue hardship had it been forced to rearrange its business schedule and that of other employees’ to accommodate Patterson.

 

The 11th Circuit also affirmed the trial court’s rejection of Patterson’s retaliation claim.  It cannot be said, the appellate court observed, that Patterson’s termination subsequent to his rejection of all reasonable accommodations was retaliatory.  An employee cannot both reject proffered reasonable accommodations and then claim retaliatory termination.  

 

Although the case will not be heard by the Supreme Court, the opinion accompanying denial of certiorari establishes that at least some of the associate justices are not at ease with the low standard that applies to employers concerning religious accommodations nor are they pleased with the continued existence of outdated definitions of religion.  The denial of certiorari means that the 11th Circuit’s view that an employee must cooperate with an employer concerning accommodations stands. As the 11th Circuit sees it, an employee seeking a religious accommodation cannot insist on the employee’s choice of accommodation, nor can the employee complain of retaliation where reasonable accommodations were offered and the employee rejected them.  

 

JustLawful prognostication:  This case was continued on conference lists for nearly a year, indicating its significance to the Court was not insubstantial but, as the concurring justices noted, the case did not present squarely the open issues that ought, in their views, to be addressed.   With the opinion below undisturbed, the balance of power in employer – employee relations in religious accommodations, at least in the 11th Circuit, rests with the employer. An employer may terminate an employee who refuses a reasonable accommodation, and may demonstrate that accommodation presents an ‘undue burden’ by offering only that the accommodation would cause more than slight harm.  

These issues will not diminish but only expand as the nation moves toward embracing a more expansive notion of religion and religious observances, and as the population of the United States grows ever more diverse in its demographics and in its religious practices.  The push and pull of employer and employee needs will likely not abate any time soon, making the hope for an apt case to serve as a vehicle to review will be presented sooner rather than later. Of course, there is nothing that stands in the way of legislative correction or executive and/or administrative refinement, perhaps obviating judicial intervention, should the coordinate branches’ respective spirits be so inclined.

 

Patterson v. Walgreen 18-349_7j70 February 24, 2020

Patterson v. Walgreen 11th Cir. March 9 2018

Appearances Do Not An Electronic Public Square Make: Ninth Circuit Rejects Assertion that First Amendment Applies to YouTube

Prager University v. Google LLC f/k/a Google Inc. and YouTube, LLC, No. 18-15712.  February 26, 2020.


Like the universe, the internet and its multiple platforms appear to be ever-expanding, even as the law of this new domain runs to catch up with novel features and equally novel claims.  The development of largely open online platforms upon which all and sundry may present their ideas, including their video recordings, gave rise to this suit. Prager University (“PragerU”), an informational resource which is not a true university, presents video discussions about politically conservative ideas.   

PragerU has objected to YouTube’s classification of its content as subject to YouTube’s “restricted” setting and to YouTube’s concomitant limitation on some of PragerU’s advertising.  The “restricted” setting is a user driven device which permits filtering content that some may see as objectionable. YouTube manages the classifications of content. Content providers who object to YouTube’s restricted classification may appeal, but the factors involved in classification and the reasons for decisions remain internal to YouTube.

PragerU has argued that YouTube is subject to the First Amendment because YouTube acts as an electronic public square.  Much as with traditional public squares, speech must be on a come one, come all basis, without hindrance by the platform provider. As such, PragerU has insisted, YouTube’s limitations on the visibility of PragerU’s content violate its First Amendment rights.

Not so, says a panel of Ninth Circuit justices, relying on an observation from the Supreme Court’s last term that the mere hosting of another’s speech will not make a private entity public.  Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1930 (2019).  

The First Amendment constrains only the government.  PragerU’s argument that YouTube has assumed a traditionally and exclusively governmental function falls far short of the mark. Inviting the public to avail itself of private property will not make a private property holder a state actor.  Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569 (1972).  

Unlike the government, which is forbidden by the First Amendment from interfering in citizens’ speech, a private entity may do as it pleases, notwithstanding that its choices may at times displease.  

The panel also rejected PragerU’s assertion that YouTube’s terms of use constituted false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act.  If this were so, the court observed, any agreement could be transformed into marketing material.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit refused to recognize any binding effect to YouTube’s public pronouncement that it aspires to uphold First Amendment principles.  Notwithstanding its legal tone, this statement was mere opinion.  More importantly, there is no “opt-in” feature that would allow a private actor to become a state actor by force of its own will.

JustLawful prognostication:  This decision will not end this matter.  There is simply too much speech at stake and too few platforms of YouTube’s scope to think otherwise.  This is not to suggest that the Ninth Circuit is incorrect, but that further exploration of these issues is expected.  This is particularly so where, as the Ninth Circuit noted, both parties offered that were the court to rule against them, the sky would surely fall (Slip. Op., pp. 13-14).  

Prager University v. Google 9th Cir. February 26 2020