Joseph Mercola ran a YouTube channel with 300k subscribers and 50M views. YouTube removed the channel for violating its medical misinformation policy (Mercola apparently peddled anti-vax views). Mercola sued YouTube for the usual things and got the usual outcomes.
Mercola initially claimed that he was suing over the content removal, but then he switched theories and claimed he just wanted access to his content. Why? Is it possible that he didn’t keep copies of his own videos? Or did he want the users’ comments for some reason? Or was this just a ploy to find any tenable legal theory against YouTube so it could be exploited in future litigation? No matter his legal theory or motivations, his case reaches the inevitable denouement.
Read the full post at
Anti-Vaxxer’s Lawsuit Over Channel Removal Fails–Mercola v. YouTube
