YouTubers Urge 9th Circuit to Reverse Dismissal of Their Ore. ARL Claims
Google’s Feb. 20 answering brief in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in defense of allegations that YouTube violates Oregon’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) and Free Offer Law (FOL) (see 2402220037) “brings nothing new to the table,” and is…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“grounded in contradictions,” said the plaintiff-appellants’ reply brief Thursday (docket 23-35465). Victor Walkingeagle, Nathan Briggs and Donald Molina's appeal contends that the district court erred June 13 when it granted YouTube’s motion to dismiss their second amended complaint for violations of the two Oregon statutes (see 2311210030). Where the appellants allege that YouTube’s disclosures, acknowledgment emails and cancellation mechanisms fail under Oregon’s ARL and FOL, YouTube says “they did not,” said the reply brief. The parties “have arrived at starkly different conclusions” as to conspicuousness, textual meaning and contractual intent, it said. “But these are disputes of fact,” it said. “At bottom, this dispute is mired in disputed factual questions concerning reasonable consumers’ impressions,” it said. In dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims, the U.S. District Court of Oregon failed to accept the allegations as true or construe them in the plaintiffs’ favor, “despite its obligation to do so,” the reply brief said. The district court also “failed to read the pertinent statutes in light of the plain textual meaning and basic grammar rules,” it said. And it failed to give the consumer protection statutes that the plaintiffs allege YouTube violated in this case “the liberal interpretation required under Oregon law,” it said. The district court also “improperly resolved factual disputes that should have been left for the jury,” it said. The 9th Circuit should reverse the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety, it said.