1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Joseph R. Saveri (SBN 130064)
Steven N. Williams (SBN 175489)
Kevin Rayhill (SBN 267496)
Kate Malone (SBN 290884)
Kyle Quackenbush (SBN 322401)
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
swillliams@saverilawfirm.com
krayhill@saverilawfirm.com
kmalone@saverilawfirm.com
kquackenbush@saverilawfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

11

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

15
16
17
18

9/21/2020

Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No.

20-CIV-04023

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY
TRIAL

v.
CLASS ACTION

YOUTUBE, INC.
Defendant.

19
20

NEED FOR ACTION

21
22

1.

Plaintiff JANE DOE seeks to protect herself and all others similarly situated from the

23

dangers of psychological trauma resulting from exposure to graphic and objectionable content on

24

YouTube, Inc.’s platform and YouTube’s failure to provide a safe workplace for the thousands of

25

contractors that scrub YouTube’s platform of disturbing content.

26

2.

Every day, YouTube users upload millions of videos to its platform. Millions of these

27

uploads include graphic and objectionable content such as child sexual abuse, rape, torture, bestiality,

28

beheadings, suicide, and murder. To maintain a sanitized platform, maximize its already vast profits, and
1
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

cultivate its public image, YouTube relies on people like Plaintiff—known as “Content Moderators”—

2

to view those videos and remove any that violate the corporation’s terms of use.

3

3.

Working at YouTube’s offices in California and offices of contract employers (“YouTube

4

Vendors”) across the country, Content Moderators—including Plaintiff—witnessed thousands of acts

5

of extreme and graphic violence and sexual assault. From genocide in Myanmar to mass shootings in Las

6

Vegas and Christ Church to videos of children being raped and animals being mutilated, Content

7

Moderators spend hours a day making sure that disturbing content like this never appears to YouTube’s

8

users.

9

4.

Content Moderators also face repeated exposure to conspiracy theories, fringe beliefs,

10

and political disinformation—from false information about participating in the census, to lies about a

11

political candidate’s citizenship status or eligibility for public office, to manipulated and/or doctored

12

videos of elected officials, to denials that the Holocaust occurred, to suggestions that Covid-19 is a

13

fraud. This type of content has destabilized society and often features objectionable content.

14

5.

As a result of unmitigated exposure to highly toxic and extremely disturbing images

15

viewed using YouTube’s proprietary “single review tool” (“SRT”), Plaintiff developed and suffers from

16

significant psychological trauma including anxiety, depression and symptoms associated with PTSD.

17

6.

To cultivate its image, YouTube (through its parent company Google, LLC) helped draft

18

workplace safety standards to attempt to mitigate the negative psychological effects that viewing graphic

19

and objectionable content has on Content Moderators. These safety standards include obtaining a

20

candidate’s informed consent during the initial employment interview process; providing Content

21

Moderators with robust and mandatory counseling and mental health support; altering the resolution,

22

audio, size, and color of trauma-inducing images and videos; and training Content Moderators to

23

recognize the physical and psychological symptoms of PTSD, anxiety, and depression.

24

7.

Although these safety standards could not eliminate the risk that Content Moderators

25

would develop negative psychological disorders after viewing graphic and disturbing content, these

26

standards could have reduced the risk and mitigated the harm.

27
28
2
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

8.

But YouTube failed to implement the workplace safety standards it helped create.

2

Instead, the multibillion-dollar corporation affirmatively requires its Content Moderators to work under

3

conditions it knows cause and exacerbate psychological trauma.

4

9.

By requiring its Content Moderators to review graphic and objectionable content,

5

YouTube requires Content Moderators to engage in an abnormally dangerous activity. And by failing to

6

implement the workplace safety standards it helped develop, YouTube violates California law. By

7

imposing non-disclosure agreements, YouTube exacerbates the harm that it causes to Content

8

Moderators.

9
10
11

10.

Without this Court’s intervention, YouTube will continue to injure Content Moderators

and breach the duties it owes to the Content Moderators who review content on its platform.
11.

On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff brings this action (1) to

12

compensate Content Moderators that were exposed to graphic and objectionable content on YouTube’s

13

platform, (2) to ensure that YouTube provides Content Moderators with tools, systems, and mandatory

14

ongoing mental health support to mitigate the harm reviewing graphic and objectionable content can

15

cause; and (3) to provide mental health screening and treatment to the thousands of current and former

16

Content Moderators affected by YouTube’s unlawful practices.

17
18

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all causes of action alleged in this

19

Complaint pursuant to article VI, section 10 of the California Constitution and is a court of competent

20

jurisdiction to grant the relief requested.

21

13.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over YouTube because it is headquartered in the

22

County of San Mateo and regularly conducts substantial business there including at its office in San

23

Bruno, California.

24

14.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections

25

395 and 395.5. YouTube is headquartered in the County of San Mateo and conducts substantial

26

business there. Plaintiff and the proposed class have been injured as a result of YouTube’s illegal

27

conduct in the County of San Mateo.

28
3
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1
2

PARTIES
15.

Plaintiff JANE DOE is a resident of Travis County, Texas. From approximately January

3

16, 2018 until approximately August 24, 2019, Plaintiff worked as a Content Moderator, reviewing

4

content for YouTube at an office located at 7700 West Parmer Lane, Austin Texas, 78717. During this

5

period, Plaintiff was employed by Collabera, Inc., (“Collabera”). Plaintiff has been diagnosed with

6

depression and suffers from symptoms associated with anxiety and PTSD. Because of the trauma JANE

7

DOE suffered, and the very real threat that publicity from this case could exacerbate JANE DOE’s

8

mental health problems, JANE DOE is using a pseudonym as provided for by California law.

9

16.

Defendant YouTube, Inc., is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its

10

headquarters located at 901 Cherry Avenue, San Bruno, California. YouTube is a fully owned subsidiary

11

of Google, LLC.

12
13
14
15

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Content moderators watch and remove some of the most depraved images on the internet to
protect YouTube’s profits
17.

In fiscal year 2019, YouTube and Google combined made approximately $150 billion in

16

advertising revenue. In 2018, that number was nearly $127 billion, and in 2017 that number was almost

17

$103 billion.

18

18.

YouTube is attractive to companies and individuals that want to buy ads because of its

19

immense user base. YouTube has over a billion monthly active users. These users value YouTube for its

20

plethora of content and ability to share information—from learning how to ride a bike, to viewing the

21

daily news, to watching funny home videos.

22

19.

To generate this content, YouTube relies on users to upload videos to its platform.

23

YouTube users upload 500 hours of video per minute, which works out to 30,000 hours per hour and

24

720,000 hours per day. As Johanna Wright—Vice President of Product Management at YouTube—

25

describes it, YouTube is the “video library for the world.”

26

20.

Instead of scrutinizing content before it is shared with its users, YouTube relies on users

27

to report inappropriate content. YouTube receives millions of user reports of potentially objectionable

28

content on its platforms.
4
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

21.

Depending on how the content is flagged, YouTube directs the content to various

2

queues, including “Violent Extremism” (“VE”), “Adult,” “Hate and Harassment,” “Child Sexual

3

Abuse Imagery” (“CSAI”), “Redshift,” “Flagged,” and “Sexual Activity and Nudity.” Content

4

Moderators then review the content to determine whether the content violates YouTube’s Community

5

Guidelines. According to YouTube, these Content Moderators are “essential…because human

6

judgment is critical to making contextualized decisions on content.”

7

22.

YouTube requires Content Moderators to review hundreds of thousands if not millions

8

of potentially rule-breaking posts per week via YouTube’s SRT. For example, between June and

9

December of 2017, YouTube’s Content Moderators reviewed nearly 2 million videos for violent

10

extremist content alone.

11

23.

To tackle this immense amount of content, Susan Wojcicki—CEO of YouTube—

12

pledged that YouTube would hire 10,000 Content Moderators in 2018. Plaintiff is informed and

13

believes that there are thousands of Content Moderators that review YouTube’s content in the United

14

States.

15
16
17
18
19

B. Repeated exposure to graphic imagery can cause devastating psychological trauma,
including PTSD, Anxiety, and Depression
24.

It is well known that exposure to images of graphic violence can cause debilitating

injuries, including PTSD, anxiety, and depression.
25.

In a study conducted by the National Crime Squad in the United Kingdom, seventy-six

20

percent of law enforcement officers surveyed reported feeling emotional distress in response to

21

exposure to child abuse on the internet. The same study, which was co-sponsored by the United

22

Kingdom’s Association of Chief Police Officers, recommended that law enforcement agencies

23

implement employee support programs to help officers manage the traumatic effects of exposure to

24

child pornography.

25

26.

In a study of 600 employees of the Department of Justice’s Internet Crimes Against

26

Children task force, the U.S. Marshals Service found that a quarter of the cybercrime investigators

27

surveyed displayed symptoms of psychological trauma, including secondary traumatic stress.

28
5
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

27.

Another study of cybercrime investigators from 2010 found that “greater exposure to

2

disturbing media was related to higher levels of . . . secondary traumatic stress” and that “substantial

3

percentages” of investigators exposed to disturbing media “reported poor psychological well-being.”

4

28.

The Eyewitness Media Hub has also studied the effects of viewing videos of graphic

5

violence, including suicide bombing, and found that “40 percent of survey respondents said that

6

viewing distressing eyewitness media has had a negative impact on their personal lives.”

7

29.

Whereas viewing or hearing about another person’s traumatic event used to be

8

considered “secondary traumatic stress,” the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

9

Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 5th ed. 2013) (“DSM-5”) recognizes that secondary or

10

indirect exposure to trauma, such as repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of trauma through

11

work-related media, meets the first diagnostic criterion for PTSD.

12

30.

While there is no way to eliminate the risk created by exposure to graphic and

13

objectionable content, especially demanding job requirements or a lack of social support reduce

14

resilience in the face of trauma exposure and increase the risk of developing debilitating psychological

15

symptoms.

16

31.

Depending on many factors, individuals who have experienced psychological trauma

17

may develop a range of subtle to significant physical and psychological symptoms, including extreme

18

fatigue, dissociation, difficulty sleeping, excessive weight gain, anxiety, nausea, and other digestive

19

issues.

20
21
22

32.

Trauma exposure and PTSD are also associated with increased risk of chronic health

problems including cardiovascular conditions, pain syndromes, diabetes, and dementia.
33.

There is growing evidence that early identification and treatment of PTSD is important

23

from a physical health perspective, as a number of meta-analyses have shown increased risk of

24

cardiovascular, metabolic, and musculoskeletal disorders among patients with long-term PTSD.

25

34.

Psychological trauma and/or PTSD are also often associated with the onset or worsening

26

of substance use disorders. Epidemiologic studies indicate that one-third to one-half of individuals with

27

PTSD also have a substance use disorder. Compared to individuals without PTSD, those with PTSD

28

have been shown to be more than twice as likely to meet the diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse or
6
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

dependence; individuals with PTSD are also three to four times more likely to meet the diagnostic

2

criteria for drug abuse or dependence.

3
4

35.

PTSD symptoms may manifest soon after the traumatic experiences, or they may

manifest later, sometimes months or years after trauma exposure.

5

36.

An individual’s risk of developing PTSD or associated symptoms may be reduced

6

through prevention measures, categorized as primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions. Primary

7

interventions are designed to increase resilience and lower the risk of future PTSD among the general

8

population. Secondary interventions are designed to lower the risk of PTSD among individuals who

9

have been exposed to trauma, even if they are not yet showing symptoms of traumatic stress. Finally,

10

tertiary interventions are designed to prevent the worsening of symptoms and improve functioning in

11

individuals who are already displaying symptoms of traumatic stress or who have been diagnosed with

12

PTSD.

13

37.

Individuals who develop PTSD or other mental health conditions following traumatic

14

exposure require not only preventative measures but also treatment. Unlike prevention, treatment

15

measures are aimed at symptom resolution and recovery from the disorder.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

38.

Preliminary screening is necessary to determine the types of prevention or treatment

measures most appropriate for an individual.
C. YouTube helped craft industry standards for mitigating the harm to Content Moderators
39.

Founded in 2006, the Technology Coalition was created “to develop technology

solutions to disrupt the ability to use the Internet to exploit children or distribute child pornography.”
40.

Google (YouTube’s parent company) was a member of the Technology Coalition at all

times relevant to the allegations herein.
41.

In January 2015, the Technology Coalition published an “Employee Resilience

Guidebook for Handling Child Sex Abuse Images” (the “Guidebook”).
42.

According to the Guidebook, the technology industry “must support those employees

who are the front line of this battle.”

27
28
7
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

43.

The Guidebook recommends that internet companies implement a robust, formal

2

“resilience” program to support Content Moderators’ well-being and mitigate the effects of exposure

3

to trauma-inducing imagery.

4

44.

With respect to hiring Content Moderators, the Guidebook recommends:

5

a. In an informational interview, “[u]se industry terms like ‘child sexual abuse

6

imagery’ and ‘online child sexual exploitation’ to describe subject matter”;

7

b. In an informational interview, “[e]ncourage candidate to go to websites [like the

8

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children] to learn about the problem”;

9

c. In follow-up interviews, “[d]iscuss candidate’s previous experience/knowledge with

10

this type of content”;

11

d. In follow-up interviews, “[d]iscuss candidate’s current level of comfort after

12

learning more about the subject”;

13

e. In follow-up interviews, “[a]llow candidate to talk with employees who handle

14

content about their experience, coping methods, etc.”; and

15

f. In follow-up interviews, “[b]e sure to discuss any voluntary and/or mandatory

16
17

counseling programs that will be provided if candidate is hired.”
45.

With respect to safety on the job, the Guidebook recommends:

18

a. Limiting the amount of time an employee is exposed to child sexual abuse imagery;

19

b. Teaching moderators how to assess their own reaction to the images;

20

c. Performing a controlled content exposure during the first week of employment with

21

a seasoned team member and providing follow up counseling sessions to the new

22

employee;

23
24
25

d. Providing mandatory group and individual counseling sessions administered by a
professional with specialized training in trauma intervention; and
e. Permitting moderators to “opt-out” from viewing child sexual abuse imagery.

26
27
28
8
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1
2

46.

The Technology Coalition also recommends the following practices for minimizing

exposure to graphic content:

3

a. Limiting time spent viewing disturbing media to “no more than four consecutive

4

hours”;

5

b. “Encouraging switching to other projects, which will allow professionals to get relief

6

from viewing images and come back recharged and refreshed”;

7

c. Using “industry-shared hashes to more easily detect and report [content] and in

8

turn, limit employee exposure to these images. Hash technology allows for

9

identification of exactly the same image previously seen and identified as

10

objectionable”;

11

d. Prohibiting Content Moderators from viewing child pornography one hour before

12

the individuals leave work; and

13
14

e. Permitting Content Moderators to take time off as a response to trauma.
47.

According to the Technology Coalition, if a company contracts with a third-party vendor

15

to perform duties that may bring vendor employees in contact with graphic content, the company

16

should clearly outline procedures to limit unnecessary exposure and should perform an initial audit of

17

the independent contractor’s wellness procedures for its employees.

18

48.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (“NCMEC”) also

19

promulgates guidelines for protecting Content Moderators from psychological trauma. For instance,

20

NCMEC recommends changing the color or resolution of the image, superimposing a grid over the

21

image, changing the direction of the image, blurring portions of the image, reducing the size of the

22

image, and muting audio.

23

49.

Based on these industry standards, some internet companies take steps to minimize

24

harm to Content Moderators. For instance, at Microsoft, “[t]he photos are blurred, rendered in black

25

and white, and shown only in thumbnail sizes. Audio is removed from video.” Filtering technology is

26

used to distort images, and Content Moderators are provided with mandatory psychological counseling.

27
28

50.

At the UK’s Internet Watch Foundation, each applicant for a content moderator

position is assessed for suitability by a psychologist, who asks about their support network, childhood
9
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

experiences, and triggers. Applicants are then interviewed about their work skills before proceeding to a

2

final interview where they are exposed to child sexual abuse imagery. Candidates sit with two current

3

Content Moderators and review a sequence of images getting progressively worse, working towards the

4

worst kinds of sexual violence against children. This stage is designed to see how candidates cope and

5

let them decide whether they wish to continue with the application process. Once they accept the job,

6

Content Moderators have an enhanced background check before they start their six months’ training,

7

which involves understanding criminal law, learning about the dark web, and, crucially, building

8

relevant trauma resilience.

9
10

D. YouTube failed to implement the very standards it helped create
51.

YouTube failed to implement workplace safety measures that it (through its parent

11

company Google) designed in the Guidelines and that other companies and non-profits have

12

implemented.

13

52.

During the hiring process, YouTube failed to properly inform prospective Content

14

Moderators about the nature of the work or the effect reviewing graphic content can have on their

15

mental health. Prospective Content Moderators are told they might be required to review graphic

16

content, but they are not provided examples and they are not told that they would be required to review

17

graphic content daily. They are also not asked about their experience with graphic content, they are not

18

told that this content can have negative mental health impacts, they are not exposed to graphic content,

19

they are not told to seek out other outside information, and they are not offered multiple days of

20

interviews.

21

53.

Before Content Moderators are exposed to any graphic content or receive any training,

22

they are required to sign an employment contract and Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”). Only

23

after these documents are signed does the training begin.

24

54.

During the training process, YouTube failed to train Content Moderators on how to

25

assess their own reaction to the images, and YouTube failed to ease Content Moderators into review of

26

graphic content through controlled exposure with a seasoned team member followed by counseling

27

sessions.

28
10
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

55.

Instead, Content Moderators are provided a two-week training where an instructor

2

presents PowerPoints created by YouTube. The PowerPoints covered various categories of content,

3

including graphic violence, child abuse, dangerous organizations, solicitation, porn, animal abuse,

4

regulated products, fraud, and spam. Each category was covered by 60–80 slides. For each category, the

5

PowerPoint began with a brief description of the applicable Community Guidelines, and then dozens of

6

examples of content, applying the Community Guidelines.

7

56.

This content was extremely graphic. For example, during training, Plaintiff witnessed a

8

video of a smashed open skull with people eating from it; a woman who was kidnapped and beheaded by

9

a cartel; a person’s head being run over by a tank; bestiality; suicides; self-harm; children being rapped;

10

births and abortions. As the example was being presented, Content Moderators were told that they

11

could step out of the room. But Content Moderators were concerned that leaving the room would mean

12

they might lose their job because at the end of the training new Content Moderators were required to

13

pass a test applying the Community Guidelines to the content.

14

57.

During the three-week training, little to no time was spent on wellness and resiliency.

15

Half-way through the training Plaintiff received—after Plaintiff was exposed to graphic content—two

16

on-site Wellness Counselors spoke for an hour to the new Content Moderators. The Wellness

17

Counselors told the Content Moderators where their offices were located, recommended that the

18

Content Moderators get enough sleep and exercise, and reminded them that this job isn’t for everyone.

19

The Wellness Counselors also told the Content Moderators that they could take breaks if they saw

20

graphic content. However, as described below, the quantity and quality quotas Content Moderators

21

were required to meet meant that these promised breaks were illusory.

22
23
24

58.

YouTube also failed to provide safeguards known to mitigate the negative effects of

reviewing graphic content.
59.

Content Moderators are required to review hundreds of graphic and disturbing videos

25

each week. To determine whether a video should be removed, YouTube created and continually revises

26

hundreds of rules that Content Moderators must use to determine whether flagged content violates

27

YouTube’s policies.

28
11
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

60.

Despite these complex Community Guidelines, YouTube imposed strict quantity and

2

accuracy quotas on Content Moderators. Content Moderators were required to review between 100 and

3

300 pieces of content per day with an error rate of two to five percent. Supervisors often reminded

4

Content Moderators of their quantity and accuracy quotas, telling the Content Moderators that “the

5

Client [YouTube] isn’t happy with the amount of content that has been reviewed” and would tell

6

Content Moderators how many posts they needed to review each day.

7

61.

To determine whether Content Moderators meet these metrics, YouTube audits

8

Content Moderator’s work. To complete this audit, YouTube used two levels of reviewers above the

9

first-level Content Moderators. Second-level Content Moderators audit first-level Content Moderators

10

and specialize in certain areas of content, such as hate speech, foreign languages, and terrorism.

11

Second-level Content Moderators are employed by YouTube Vendors. Third-level Content

12

Moderators are employed by YouTube and audit second-level Content Moderators. If Content

13

Moderators failed to meet the quantity and accuracy quotas, supervisors threat them with performance

14

improvement plans (“PIPs”), which could lead to termination.

15

62.

YouTube was aware or should have been aware that its strict standards created

16

stress and that such stress contributed to and exacerbated Content Moderator’s risk of

17

developing psychological trauma.

18
19
20

63.

For many reasons—including low wages, short-term contracts, and the trauma

associated with the work—many Content Moderators remain in the position for less than one year.
64.

Because of this high turnover and due to the immense amount of content that requires

21

manual review, YouTube is chronically understaffed. To make up for this shortfall, Content

22

Moderators are required to work long hours reviewing graphic content, despite YouTube’s own best

23

practices described in the Guidebook and its claim in 2018 that Content Moderators would be limited to

24

reviewing four hours of graphic content per day. In fact, Content Moderators routinely spend more

25

than four hours a day reviewing graphic content, and some Content Moderators are given overtime pay

26

to reduce backlogged queues.

27
28

65.

To review this content, YouTube designed and created the SRT, which it requires all

Content Moderators to use, regardless of whether the Content Moderators are employed directly by
12
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

YouTube or by a YouTube Vendor and regardless of whether the Content Moderators are working at a

2

YouTube facility or a facility operated by a YouTube Vendor.

3

66.

YouTube monitors and is aware of the content of the videos the Content Moderators

4

view, the number of videos the Content Moderators view per hour and per day, and the length of

5

continuous content moderation sessions and breaks. YouTube controls how the videos are displayed

6

(e.g., full screen versus thumbnails, blurred versus unblurred, etc.), how the accompanying audio is

7

broadcast, and whether videos begin automatically upon completion of the prior video or whether the

8

Content Moderator can catch his or her breath by controlling the start of the ensuing video.

9

67.

YouTube failed to implement tooling safeguards in the SRT that would mitigate some of

10

the harm caused by reviewing graphic and disturbing content, including changing the color or resolution

11

of the video, superimposing a grid over the video, changing the direction of the video, blurring portions

12

of the video, reducing the size of the video, and muting audio, although it knew that doing so was

13

necessary to mitigate the harm to Content Moderators that was certain to result.

14

68.

This failure is especially glaring considering the reasonably uncomplicated nature of

15

many of the tooling changes. In 2017, a request was posted on Buganizer—YouTube’s internal

16

reporting system for technical assistance—to implement tooling changes such as blurring images and

17

videos. A Content Moderator in California commented on the request asking that a warning label be

18

added to images and videos flagged as ultra-graphic violence. A YouTube engineer responded that this

19

tooling change would take approximately half a day to implement. Suzanne French—Head of Global

20

Vendor Operations at YouTube—commented that this tooling change was not a high priority and

21

refused to implement the change.

22

69.

When especially graphic content started being posted during and after the genocide in

23

Myanmar, the Content Moderator again commented on the Buganizer request to see if YouTube would

24

reconsider its decision. The Content Moderator’s request was ignored, and he was reprimanded for

25

raising the issue. As of 2019, no tooling changes had been implemented.

26

70.

YouTube also failed to provide psychological support to Content Moderators. YouTube

27

purportedly offered Content Moderators “wellness” benefits, including a “Wellness Coach,” a

28

hotline, and a human resources department.
13
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

71.

However, these support services were insufficient. Wellness Coaches were unavailable

2

to Content Moderators that worked the evening shifts: 3:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. to 7:00

3

a.m. And even those Content Moderators that had access to a Wellness Coach did not receive any on-

4

site medical care because Wellness Coaches are not medical doctors and cannot diagnose or treat

5

mental health disorders. Instead, Wellness Coaches would occasionally recommend that a Content

6

Moderator see a licensed clinician but would not provide any information on how to find treatment.

7

72.

Wellness Coaches were also underqualified and undertrained, and consequently Content

8

Moderators did not feel comfortable asking them for help. For example, in spring of 2018, Plaintiff met

9

with a Wellness Coach to discuss upsetting videos she had witnessed that were particularly traumatic.

10

The Wellness Coach recommended that Plaintiff take illegal drugs. The Wellness Coach did not

11

provide any resiliency training or coping mechanisms (beyond self-medicating with an illegal

12

substance).

13

73.

A few months after that, Plaintiff spoke with a fellow Content Moderator that had met

14

with a different Wellness Coach. That Wellness Coach told Plaintiff’s co-worker to “trust in God,”

15

advice that was unhelpful.

16

74.

Content Moderators also believed that communications with Wellness Coaches were not

17

kept confidential and feared that anything that was said to a Wellness Coach would be reported to

18

management. And when Content Moderators tried to discuss the effect viewing graphic content had on

19

their mental health, employees within the human resource department told Content Moderators they

20

could not help them.

21

75.

YouTube also demands that Google Vendors require their employees to sign sweeping

22

Non-Disclosure Agreements (“NDAs”). YouTube further requires YouTube Vendors to provide

23

YouTube-developed training to all Content Moderators that instructs the Content Moderators not to

24

speak about the content or workplace conditions to anyone outside of their review team, including

25

therapists, psychiatrists, or psychologists retained by Content Moderators. By prohibiting Content

26

Moderators from discussing their work or seeking outside social support, YouTube impedes the

27

development of resiliency and increases the risk that Content Moderators will develop psychological

28
14
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

trauma. Furthermore, by imposing NDAs in violation of California law, YouTube is estopped from

2

asserting any statute of limitations defense to these claims.

3
4
5

E. YouTube knows that exposure to graphic content can cause psychological trauma but
seeks to silence whistle blowers and shield itself from liability
76.

In 2019, YouTube acknowledged that viewing graphic content could lead to

6

psychological trauma. Well before that, YouTube engaged in an aggressive campaign to hide evidence

7

and silence whistle blowers. In 2017, Content Moderators were told to stop talking or posting about the

8

negative effects of reviewing graphic content. YouTube also purged its messaging systems of any of

9

these reports, deleting old posts by Content Moderators that shed light on the trauma they were

10
11

experiencing.
77.

YouTube also sought to shield itself from liability. On December 20, 2019—four days

12

after The Verge published an investigation into PTSD among workers at YouTube’s Content Moderator

13

facility in Austin, Texas—YouTube responded by requiring its Content Moderators to sign a document

14

acknowledging that performing the job can cause PTSD.

15

78.

YouTube also required Content Moderators to acknowledge that “no job is worth

16

sacrificing my mental or emotional health” and that “this job is not for everyone”—language likely

17

drafted by lawyers and which is intended to suggest Content Moderators suffering from negative

18

psychological health effects caused by exposure to graphic content might be terminated if they reported

19

any negative impacts to their psychological health.

20

79.

If a Content Moderator is fired or quits, they lose medical insurance and other

21

healthcare benefits, as well as their income. Therefore, Content Moderators were left with a

22

Hobbesian’s choice—quit and lose access to an income and medical insurance or continue to suffer in

23

silence to keep their job.

24

80.

From approximately January 16, 2018 until August 24, 2019, JANE DOE worked as a

25

“Content Review Analysist” (i.e., Content Moderator), reviewing content for YouTube at an office

26

located at 7700 West Parmer Lane, Austin Texas, 78717.

27

81.

During this period, Plaintiff was employed solely by Collabera.

28

82.

At all times relevant to this complaint, Collabera was a YouTube Vendor.
15
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

83.

Collabera directly oversaw all human resources matters concerning Plaintiff.

2

84.

Plaintiff has never been employed by YouTube in any capacity.

3

85.

Plaintiff never received any wages from YouTube.

4

86.

Plaintiff never received YouTube’s employee benefits package (e.g., wellness benefits,

5

paid time off, and parental financial assistance).

6

87.

Plaintiff worked as a first-level Content Moderator.

7

88.

During her employment as a Content Moderator, Plaintiff was exposed to thousands of

8

graphic and objectionable videos, including graphic violence, sexual assault, and child pornography. For

9

example, Plaintiff witnessed a video of: a smashed open skull with people eating from it; a woman who

10

was kidnapped and beheaded by a cartel; a person’s head being run over by a tank; a man eating the

11

head off a rat; a fox being skinned alive; a man falling to his death off a roof that included audio of the

12

impact of his body hitting the ground; school shootings included dead bodies of children; a politician

13

shooting himself; backyard abortions; child abuse; and child sexual assault.

14

89.

As a result of training for and providing content moderation services through YouTube’s

15

SRT and in accordance with YouTube’s policies, Plaintiff developed severe psychological trauma

16

including depression and symptoms associated with anxiety and PTSD.

17

90.

PTSD and related syndromes caused by exposure to harmful content can be triggered by

18

witnessing abuse; watching the news or seeing violence on television; hearing loud noises like gunshots,

19

fireworks, cars backfiring, or objects falling; seeing ISIS members or paraphernalia; and seeing racially-

20

discordant posts sowing political dissension in America. She has trouble sleeping and when she does

21

sleep, she has horrific nightmares. She often lays awake at night trying to go to sleep, replaying videos

22

that she has seen in her mind. She cannot be in crowded places, including concerts and events, because

23

she fears mass shootings. She has severe and debilitating panic attacks. She has lost many friends

24

because of her anxiety around people. She has trouble interacting and being around kids and is now

25

scared to have children.

26
27
28

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
91.

Plaintiff brings this class action individually and on behalf of all persons who performed

content moderation work for YouTube in the United States at any time up until the present.
16
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

92.

Excluded from this definition are Defendant’s officers, directors, and management, any

2

judicial officer presiding over this action and the members of his/her immediate family and judicial

3

staff, any juror assigned to this action, and any Content Moderators that are employed directly by

4

Defendant.

5

93.

The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiff does not

6

know the exact size of the class since that information is within the control of YouTube and its Vendors.

7

However, upon information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the number of class members is in the

8

thousands. Membership in the class is readily ascertainable from YouTube’s records such as those

9

relating to its contracts with YouTube’s Vendors or to registered users of YouTube’s SRT.

10

94.

There are numerous questions of law or fact common to the class, and those issues

11

predominate over any question affecting only individual class members. The common legal and factual

12

issues include the following:

13

a. Whether YouTube committed the violations of the law alleged herein;

14

b. Whether viewing graphic and objectionable conduct in the manner which Content

15

Moderators do for YouTube is an abnormally dangerous activity;

16

c. Whether YouTube participated in and perpetrated the tortious conduct complained

17

of herein;

18

d. Whether Plaintiff and the class are entitled to medical screening, treatment, and

19

damages;

20

e. Whether YouTube should be ordered to implement and comply with industry

21
22

guidelines for safety in content moderation.
95.

The claims asserted by Plaintiff are typical of the claims in that the representative

23

plaintiff, like all class members, was exposed to highly toxic, unsafe, and injurious content while

24

providing content moderation services for YouTube. Each member of the proposed class has been

25

similarly injured by YouTube’s misconduct.

26
27

96.

Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff has retained

attorneys experienced in class actions, complex litigation, California law, and issues involving content

28
17
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

moderation. Plaintiff intends to vigorously prosecute this litigation. Neither Plaintiff nor their counsel

2

have interests that conflict with the interests of the other class members.

3

97.

Plaintiff and the class members have all suffered and will continue to suffer harm

4

resulting from YouTube’s wrongful conduct. A class action is superior to other available methods for

5

the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Treatment as a class action will permit a large

6

number of similarly situated persons to adjudicate their common claims in a single forum

7

simultaneously, efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual

8

actions would engender. Class treatment will also permit the adjudication of claims by many members

9

of the proposed class who could not individually afford to litigate a claim such as is asserted in this

10

complaint. This action likely presents no difficulties in management that would preclude maintenance

11

as a class action.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
(Abnormally Dangerous Activity)

12
13
14
15

98.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein all allegations above.

16

99.

A company is strictly liable to individuals that are injured while the company engages in

17
18

an abnormally dangerous activity.
100.

An activity is abnormally dangerous if it (a) necessarily involves a risk of serious harm to

19

the person, land or chattels of others which cannot be eliminated by the exercise of the utmost care, and

20

(b) is not a matter of common usage.

21

101.

Requiring Content Moderators to review graphic and objectionable content is an

22

abnormally dangerous activity. Content Moderators risk serious and debilitating psychological trauma,

23

including severe anxiety, depression and PTSD and there is no way to eliminate this risk. Content

24

moderation is also not a matter of common usage. Only a handful of technology companies, non-profits,

25

government agencies, and non-governmental organizations review content.

26

102.

Strict liability for a defendant that engages in abnormally dangerous activity represents a

27

social-policy determination that the defendant, while engaged in an enterprise tolerated by the law,

28

must pay for the damage caused by its enterprise.
18
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

103.

In fiscal year 2019, YouTube and its parent company Google made a combined

2

approximately $150 billion in advertising revenue. In 2018, that number was nearly $127 billion, and in

3

2017 that number was almost $103 billion. YouTube and Google are some of the most successful

4

companies in history based on revenue.

5

104.

YouTube derives this vast wealth from providing a platform safe from graphic and

6

objectionable content. YouTube relies on Content Moderators to ensure that its platform is free from

7

graphic and objectionable content. Therefore, YouTube is required under the law to pay for the harm

8

caused by requiring Content Moderators to review and remove graphic and objectionable content.

9

105.

As a result of YouTube’s tortious conduct, Plaintiff and the class are at an increased risk

10

of developing serious mental health injuries, including, but not limited to, PTSD, anxiety, and

11

depression.

12

106.

13
14

To remedy that injury, Plaintiff and the class need medical monitoring that provides

specialized screening, assessment, and treatment not generally given to the public at large.
107.

The medical monitoring regime includes, but is not limited to, baseline screening,

15

assessments, and examinations that will assist in diagnosing the adverse health effects associated with

16

exposure to trauma. This screening and assessment will also inform which behavioral and/or

17

pharmaceutical interventions are best suited to preventing or mitigating various adverse consequences

18

of post-traumatic stress and other conditions associated with exposure to graphic imagery.

19

108.

In particular, the medical monitoring regime includes (a) secondary preventative

20

interventions, designed to reduce the risk of later onset of PTSD among class members who are not yet

21

displaying symptoms of PTSD; (b) tertiary interventions, designed to reduce the worsening of

22

symptoms among those who are already experiencing symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress

23

or have a diagnosis of PTSD; and (c) evidence-based treatments to facilitate recovery from mental

24

health conditions.

25

109.

Monitoring, assessing, and providing preventative interventions and/or treatment to

26

Plaintiff and the class will significantly reduce the risk of long-term injury, disease, and economic loss

27

that Plaintiff and the class have incurred as a result of YouTube’s unlawful conduct.

28
19
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

110.

Plaintiff seeks medical screening and treatment to facilitate the screening, diagnosis, and

2

adequate treatment of Plaintiff and the class for psychological trauma, including to prevent or mitigate

3

conditions such as PTSD, anxiety, and depression.

4
5
6

111.

Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages for the injuries she and the class have

suffered.
112.

7

Plaintiff also seeks an award of attorney’s fees.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
(Negligent Exercise of Retained Control)

8
9
10

113.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein all allegations above.

11

114.

Solely in the alternative and to the extent it is determined that YouTube is not strictly

12

liable for the harm caused by engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity, Plaintiff brings this second

13

cause of action for negligence exercise of retained control.

14
15
16

115.

The hirer of an independent contractor is liable to an employee of the contractor insofar

as the hirer’s negligent exercise of retained control affirmatively contributed to the employee’s injuries.
116.

If an entity hires an independent contractor to complete work but retains control over

17

any part of the work, the hiring entity has a duty to the independent contractor’s employees or

18

subcontractors to exercise that control with reasonable care.

19

117.

If the hiring entity negligently exercises its retained control in a manner that

20

affirmatively contributes to the injuries of the contractor’s employees or subcontractors, the hiring

21

entity is liable for those injuries.

22

118.

At all times relevant to the allegations herein, Plaintiff and class members were

23

employees or subcontractors of independent contractors that YouTube hired to provide content

24

moderation services including, for example, Collabera, Vaco and Accenture.

25
26

119.

YouTube exercised retained control over certain aspects of the work performed by

Plaintiff and the class, including:

27
28
20
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

a. Requiring Content Moderators to use a YouTube-developed review platform that

2

presented unmitigated traumatic content to Content Moderators according to

3

YouTube-developed algorithms;

4

b. Requiring that Content Moderators—through their employers—sign NDAs and

5

undergo YouTube-developed confidentiality trainings that prohibited Content

6

Moderators from discussing their work outside their review teams;

7

c. Requiring that Content Moderators be interviewed and undergo training using

8

YouTube-developed training materials and procedures; and

9

d. Setting expectations as to the overall timeframe for and accuracy of content review,

10

calculating the amount of time it should take a Content Moderator to review

11

different types of posts, and deciding the overall number of hours required to meet

12

the overarching timeframe and accuracy expectations.

13
14
15

120.

Based on its exercise of retained control, YouTube has had at all relevant times a duty to

exercise reasonable care with regard to the safety of Plaintiff and the class.
121.

YouTube negligently exercised its retained control in a manner that affirmatively

16

contributed to the injuries of Plaintiff and the class, including by exacerbating Plaintiff’s and class

17

members’ risks of developing PTSD or other health issues. For example:

18

a. YouTube failed to provide adequate technological safeguards to protect Content

19

Moderators from risks associated with exposure to traumatic content via YouTube’s

20

SRT;

21

b. YouTube’s NDAs and confidentiality requirements diminished Content

22

Moderators’ social support networks and resilience by prohibiting Content

23

Moderators from speaking about the content they reviewed or other related

24

workplace conditions to anyone outside of their review teams;

25

c. YouTube failed to provide Content Moderators with an interview process and

26

training that met the standards it developed through the Technology Coalition’s

27

Guidebook; and

28
21
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

d. By setting demanding standards for review, both in terms of quantity and quality

2

expectations, YouTube imposed stressful work conditions that served to further

3

reduce Content Moderators’ resilience to trauma.

4

122.

YouTube was aware of the psychological trauma that could be caused by viewing graphic

5

and objectionable content, including videos and/or images of child abuse, rape, torture, bestiality,

6

beheadings, suicide, murder, and other forms of extreme violence through the SRT.

7

123.

YouTube was also aware or should have been aware that the SRT could be made safer if

8

proper precautions were followed, that requiring Content Moderators not to discuss their work or

9

workplace conditions reduced their ability to deal with traumatic content, and that YouTube’s overall

10

quality and quantity standards had the effect of imposing intense workplace stress and, accordingly,

11

increasing Content Moderators’ risk of injury from psychological trauma.

12

124.

YouTube breached its duty to Plaintiff and the class by failing to provide the necessary

13

and adequate technological safeguards, safety and instructional materials, warnings, social support, and

14

other means to reduce and/or minimize the physical and psychiatric risks associated with exposure to

15

graphic imagery through YouTube’s SRT.

16

125.

YouTube continues to breach its duty to class members by failing to exercise its retained

17

control with reasonable care; that breach continues to elevate class members’ risk of injury from

18

psychological trauma.

19

126.

As a result of YouTube’s tortious conduct, Plaintiff and the class are at an increased risk

20

of developing serious mental health injuries, including, but not limited to, PTSD, anxiety, and

21

depression.

22

127.

23
24

To remedy that injury, Plaintiff and the class need medical monitoring that provides

specialized screening, assessment, and treatment not generally given to the public at large.
128.

The medical monitoring regime includes, but is not limited to, baseline screening,

25

assessments, and examinations that will assist in diagnosing the adverse health effects associated with

26

exposure to trauma. This screening and assessment will also inform which behavioral and/or

27

pharmaceutical interventions are best suited to preventing or mitigating various adverse consequences

28

of post-traumatic stress and other conditions associated with exposure to graphic imagery.
22
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

129.

In particular, the medical monitoring regime includes (a) secondary preventative

2

interventions, designed to reduce the risk of later onset of PTSD among class members who are not yet

3

displaying symptoms of PTSD; (b) tertiary interventions, designed to reduce the worsening of

4

symptoms among those who are already experiencing symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress

5

or have a diagnosis of PTSD; and (c) evidence-based treatments to facilitate recovery from mental

6

health conditions.

7

130.

Monitoring, assessing, and providing preventative interventions and/or treatment to

8

Plaintiffs and the class will significantly reduce the risk of long-term injury, disease, and economic loss

9

that Plaintiff and the class has incurred as a result of YouTube’s unlawful conduct.

10

131.

Plaintiff seeks medical screening and treatment to facilitate the screening, diagnosis, and

11

adequate treatment of Plaintiff and the class for psychological trauma, including to prevent or mitigate

12

conditions such as PTSD, anxiety, and depression.

13
14
15

132.

Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages for the injuries she and the class have

suffered.
133.

16

Plaintiff also seeks an award of attorney’s fees.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
(Negligent Provision of Unsafe Equipment)

17
18
19

134.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporate by reference herein all allegations above.

20

135.

Solely in the alternative and to the extent that this Court concludes that YouTube is not

21

strictly liable for the harm caused by engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity, Plaintiff brings this

22

third cause of action for negligence provision of unsafe equipment.

23

136.

An entity that hires an independent contractor to complete work is liable to the

24

independent contractor’s employees or subcontractors if the hiring entity negligently provides unsafe

25

equipment that contributes to a workplace injury.

26
27

137.

YouTube provided to its independent contractors the review platform that Plaintiff and

the class were required to use to complete their work.

28
23
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

138.

2

contractors.

3

139.

YouTube had a duty to exercise reasonable care to furnish a safe review platform to its

YouTube was aware of the psychological trauma that could be caused by viewing graphic

4

and objectionable content, including videos and/or images of child abuse, rape, torture, bestiality,

5

beheadings, suicide, murder, and other forms of extreme violence through its review platforms.

6
7
8
9
10

140.

YouTube was aware or should have been aware that its review platforms could be made

safer if proper precautions were followed.
141.

YouTube nevertheless provided unsafe review tools to Plaintiff and the class that

exposed Plaintiff and the class to unmitigated traumatic content.
142.

YouTube breached its duty to Plaintiff and the class by failing to provide necessary and

11

adequate technological safeguards, safety and instructional materials, warnings, and other means to

12

reduce and/or minimize the physical and psychiatric risks associated with exposure to graphic imagery

13

through YouTube’s review platform.

14

143.

YouTube continues to breach its duty to class members by failing to provide a reasonably

15

safe review platform; that breach continues to elevate class members’ risk of injury from psychological

16

trauma.

17

144.

As a result of YouTube’s tortious conduct, Plaintiff and the class are at an increased risk

18

of developing serious mental health injuries, including, but not limited to, PTSD, anxiety, and

19

depression.

20

145.

21
22

To remedy that injury, Plaintiff and the class need medical monitoring that provides

specialized screening, assessment, and treatment not generally given to the public at large.
146.

The medical monitoring regime includes, but is not limited to, baseline screening,

23

assessments, and examinations that will assist in diagnosing the adverse health effects associated with

24

exposure to trauma. This screening and assessment will also inform which behavioral and/or

25

pharmaceutical interventions are best suited to preventing or mitigating various adverse consequences

26

of post-traumatic stress and other conditions associated with exposure to graphic imagery.

27
28

147.

In particular, the medical monitoring regime includes (a) secondary preventative

interventions, designed to reduce the risk of later onset of PTSD among class members who are not yet
24
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

displaying symptoms of PTSD; (b) tertiary interventions, designed to reduce the worsening of

2

symptoms among those who are already experiencing symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress or

3

have a diagnosis of PTSD; and (c) evidence-based treatments to facilitate recovery from mental health

4

conditions.

5

148.

Monitoring, assessing, and providing preventative interventions and/or treatment to

6

Plaintiff and the class will significantly reduce the risk of long-term injury, disease, and economic loss

7

that Plaintiff and the class have incurred as a result of YouTube’s unlawful conduct.

8
9
10
11
12
13

149.

Plaintiff seeks medical screening and treatment to facilitate the screening, diagnosis, and

adequate treatment of Plaintiff and the class for psychological trauma, including to prevent or mitigate
conditions such as PTSD, anxiety, and depression.
150.

Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages for the injuries she and the class have

suffered.
151.

Plaintiff also seeks an award of attorney’s fees.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW

14
15
16

152.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference herein all allegations above.

17

153.

Solely in the alternative and to the extent that this Court concludes that YouTube is not

18

strictly liable for the harm caused by engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity, Plaintiff brings this

19

fourth cause of action for violation of California Unfair Competition Law.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

154.

YouTube’s negligent exercise of retained control of the content moderation work

performed by Plaintiff and the class violates California common law.
155.

YouTube’s negligent provision of unsafe equipment to its independent contractors for

use by Plaintiff and the class also violates California common law.
156.

Plaintiff each suffered an injury in fact because of YouTube’s negligent conduct and has

lost money because of YouTube’s conduct.
157.

Specifically, Plaintiff paid out of pocket for medical treatment and therapy for her

depression and symptoms of anxiety and PTSD, which was caused by YouTube’s conduct.

28
25
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1
2
3

158.

There were and are reasonably available alternatives to the conduct described herein that

would further YouTube’s legitimate business interests.
159.

Plaintiff seeks all appropriate injunctive relief pursuant to section 17203 of the California

4

Business and Professions Code, including an order requiring YouTube to implement safety guidelines

5

for all prospective content moderation operations.

6

160.

Plaintiff also seek an injunction creating a YouTube-funded medical monitoring program

7

to facilitate the screening, diagnosis, and adequate treatment of Plaintiff and the class for psychological

8

trauma, including preventing or mitigating conditions such as PTSD, anxiety, and depression. The

9

program should include a fund to pay for the medical monitoring and treatment of Plaintiff and the class

10
11

as frequently and appropriately as necessary.
161.

12

Plaintiff also seeks an award of attorney’s fees.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
(as “Special Employer”)

13
14
15

162.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporate by reference herein all allegations above.

16

163.

Solely in the alternative and to the extent that this Court concludes that YouTube is a

17

“special employer” of Plaintiff and the class, Plaintiff brings this fifth cause of action under the UCL

18

based on YouTube’s failure to provide a safe workplace and its violation of California’s prohibition on

19

non-disclosure requirements concerning workplace conditions.

20

164.

Section 6400 of California’s Labor Code requires employers to “furnish employment

21

and a place of employment that is safe and healthful for the employees therein.” Similarly, section 6401

22

requires every employer to “furnish and use safety devices and safeguards, and [to] adopt and use

23

practices, means, methods, operations, and processes which are reasonably adequate to render such

24

employment and place of employment safe and healthful.”

25

165.

To protect employees from unsafe workplaces, California law requires that “[e]very

26

employer shall do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, safety, and health of

27

employees.” Cal. Labor Code § 6401. This includes “establish[ing], implement[ing], and maintain[ing]

28

an effective injury prevention program.” Cal. Labor Code § 6401.7. Employers must “provide and use
26
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

safety devices and safeguards reasonably adequate to render the employment and place of employment

2

safe,” “adopt and use methods and processes reasonably adequate to render the employment and place

3

of employment safe,” and “do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, safety, and

4

health of employees.” Cal. Labor Code § 6403

5
6
7

166.

No employer can “require or permit any employee to go or be in any employment or

place of employment which is not safe and healthful.” Cal. Labor Code § 6402.
167.

YouTube failed to provide a safe working environment. YouTube routinely and

8

repeatedly exposed Plaintiff and the class to content known to cause psychological trauma, including

9

PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Even though YouTube knew of and could have reasonably

10

implemented adequate safety measures, the corporation refused to implement necessary and adequate

11

safety and instructional materials, trainings, warnings, and means to reduce and/or minimize the risks

12

associated with exposure to graphic content.

13
14
15

168.

YouTube’s failure to provide a safe workplace for Plaintiff and the class violates, inter

alia, sections 6400, 6401, 6401.7, 6402, and 6403 of the California Labor Code.
169.

In requiring Content Moderators to sign sweeping NDAs and instructing Content

16

Moderators not to disclose information about working conditions—including the traumatic nature of

17

the content, the intense stress from quantity and quality expectations, and the lack of training and safety

18

measures to protect moderators from trauma exposure—YouTube further violates section 232.5 of the

19

California Labor Code.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

170.

YouTube’s illegal conduct was and is willful and serious and has directly caused harm to

Plaintiff and the class.
171.

Plaintiff suffered an injury in fact because of YouTube’s conduct and has lost money

because of YouTube’s conduct.
172.

Specifically, Plaintiff paid out of pocket for medical treatment and therapy for her

depression and symptoms of anxiety and PTSD, which was caused by YouTube’s conduct.
173.

There were reasonably available alternatives to the conduct described herein that would

further YouTube’s legitimate business interests.

28
27
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1
2
3

174.

YouTube’s failure to follow worker safety laws amounts to an unlawful, unfair, and

fraudulent business practice under California Business and Professions Code section 17200.
175.

Plaintiff seeks all appropriate injunctive relief pursuant to Business and Professions Code

4

section 17203, including an order requiring YouTube to implement safety guidelines for all Content

5

Moderators.

6

176.

Plaintiff also seeks an injunction creating a YouTube-funded medical monitoring

7

program to facilitate the screening, diagnosis, and adequate treatment of Plaintiff and the class for

8

psychological trauma, including preventing or mitigating conditions such as PTSD, anxiety, and

9

depression. The program should include a fund to pay for the medical monitoring and treatment of

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff and the class as frequently and appropriately as necessary.
177.

Plaintiff and the class will be irreparably harmed and/or denied an effective and

complete remedy if such an order is not granted.
178.

Plaintiff also seeks an award of attorney’s fees.

14

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

15

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class, requests that the Court:

16

a. Certify this action as a class action with a class as defined above;

17

b. Find that Plaintiff is a proper representative of the class and appoint the undersigned as class

18

counsel;

19

c. Order Defendant to pay to notify class members of the pendency of this suit;

20

d. Order Defendant to create a medical monitoring fund for the benefit of Plaintiff and the

21

class;

22

e. Order Defendant to pay compensatory damages to Plaintiff and the class;

23

f. Award injunctive relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiff and class members,

24

including by enjoining Defendant from continuing to conduct business through the unlawful

25

and unfair practices alleged herein, ordering Defendant to implement safety guidelines for

26

all prospective content moderation operations, and ordering Defendant to establish a fund to

27

pay for a medical monitoring program to facilitate the ongoing screening, diagnosis, and

28

adequate treatment of Plaintiff and the class for psychological trauma—including to prevent
28
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 1

or mitigate conditions such as PTSD, anxiety and depression—until it can be determined

2

that psychological trauma is no longer a threat to their health;

3
4
5

g. Award Plaintiff and class members their reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees;
and
h. Award any further relief that this Court deems just and equitable.

6
7

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby request trial by jury.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Dated: September 21, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
By:

_______
Joseph R. Saveri (SBN 130064)
Steven N. Williams (SBN 175489)
Kevin Rayhill (SBN 267496)
Kate Malone (SBN 290884)
Kyle Quackenbush (SBN 322401)
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
swillliams@saverilawfirm.com
krayhill@saverilawfirm.com
kmalone@saverilawfirm.com
kquackenbush@saverilawfirm.com

21
22

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL