United States v. Lattman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding 13 whether “Luv ya” is “Content” is immaterial because either way, defendant’s terms of service 14 unambiguously reserves defendant’s broad discretionary power to discontinue defendant’s 15 services at any time
• holding the Terms of Service in effect in 2015 “unambiguously reserve to YouTube the right to determine whether ‘Content violates these Terms of Service’ and, ‘at any time, without prior notice and in its sole discretion, remove such Content”
• noting that just because “the statute requires the user or service provider to subjectively believe the blocked or screened material is objectionable does not mean anything or everything YouTube finds subjectively objectionable is within the scope of Section 230(c
• “when a statute provides a list of examples followed by a catchall term (or ‘residual clause’) like ‘otherwise objectionable,’ the preceding list provides a clue as to what the drafters intended the catchall provision to mean”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).