# Alonso v. Google LLC

> District Court, M.D. Florida · September 28, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10114144

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** September 28, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10114144

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
REGINA ALONSO,
Plaintiff,
Vv. Case No. 5:23-ev-91-JA-PRL
GOOGLE LLC, YOUTUBE LLC,
JAMES JACKSON and LUCAS
JACKSON,
Defendants.

ORDER
Before the Court are the Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 39) filed by
Defendants YouTube, LLC, and Google, LLC, and the Motion to Transfer Venue
(Doc. 33) filed by Defendants James and Lucas Jackson. Upon consideration of
the parties’ arguments, and for the reasons that follow, the Court will transfer
this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California pursuant to the forum-selection clause in YouTube’s Terms of
Service.

I. BACKGROUND!
James Jackson started a YouTube channel in 2006 and began posting tc
it in 2007. (Doc. 1 { 96). James? quickly attracted a fanbase of adolescent girls
because he became known for commenting on body image, appearance, and self-
identity, among other things.3 (Id. § 98). Eventually, YouTube and Google
offered to monetize James’s channels under their YouTube Partnership
Program (YPP). Under the YPP, YouTube pays the YouTube Partner 55% of
advertising revenue from their page and YouTube keeps the other 45%. (Id.
{| 76). Google handles all advertising placement and revenue collection and pays
the YouTube partner their portion of the profits pursuant to the YPP agreement.
(Id. | 77).
James also used his YouTube platform to invite fans to connect with him
on online forums. Ud. § 132). In 2012, Plaintiff, Regina Alonso, discovered
James’s videos and became a big fan. (Id. § 151). Alonso soon began chatting
with James’s spouse, Lucas,‘ on one of James’s forums. (Id. □ 153). When Alonso
was between the ages of 15 and 17, she and Lucas developed a flirtatious and

1 The Court draws the facts from the Complaint (Doc. 1) and provides them only
as background.
2 James goes by “Onision” online.
° The titles of some of James's videos include: “Am I Pretty?’; “How Skinny is
Too Skinny?”; and “How to Give a Hickey.” (Doc. 1 J 111).
4 Prior to 2019, Lucas identified as female and was known as “Lainey.” In 2019,
Lainey changed genders to identify as male and now goes by “Lucas.” Male pronouns
will be used to refer to Lucas in this Order.

sexual online relationship that included nude video calls and the exchange of
nude photos. 7d. 157-58). In 2015, when Alonso was 17 years old, James and
Lucas invited her to meet them in person for the first time at their home in
Washington state. (Id. § 40). After Alonso’s mother refused her daughter’s
request to travel, the Jacksons moved on from her to their “next victim.” (Id.
{4 41-42).
In February 2023, Alonso filed this suit against the Jacksons, YouTube,
and Google under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1595 & 2255, which provide civil remedies for
violations of criminal statutes prohibiting sex crimes against minors. All
Defendants now move to transfer venue. YouTube and Google seek to move the
suit to the Northern District of California, (see Doc. 39), while the Jacksons
request that it be transferred to their home state of Washington, (see Doc. 33).
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Defendants YouTube and Google move to transfer venue pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a), relying on the forum-selection clause in YouTube’s Terms of
Service (Terms). Section 1404(a) provides that “[flor the convenience of parties
and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil
action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to
any district or division to which all parties have consented.” Id. (emphasis
added). “The decision to transfer a case to another district is left to the sound

discretion of the trial court.” Brown v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 1193,
1197 (11th Cir. 1991).
Because the presence of a forum-selection clause “represents the parties
agreement as to the most proper forum,” it requires that certain adjustments be
made to the ordinary § 1404(a) analysis. Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.
for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 62-63 (2013) (quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh
Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 31 (1988)). “These adjustments require a court evaluating a
motion to transfer pursuant to a forum-selection clause to afford no weight to
either the plaintiffs selected forum or the parties’ private interests, and to
ignore the choice-of-law rules of the original venue.” Hisey v. Qualtek USA, LLC,
753 F. App’x 698, 703 (11th Cir. 2018). In such cases, the plaintiff “bear[s] the
burden of showing why the court should not transfer the case to the forum to
which the parties agreed.” Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 64.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Regina Alonso
Alonso argues that she is not bound by the forum-selection clause, (Doc.
46 at 8), and that even if she were, upholding it against her would not be in the
interest of justice, (id. at 9). The Court disagrees.
When users create a YouTube account, they must agree to the platform’s
Terms. (See Doc. 39 at 1-3). The Terms include a forum-selection clause that
states that “[a]ny claim or dispute ... that arises in whole or in part from the

[YouTube] Service shall be decided exclusively by a court of competent
jurisdiction located in Santa Clara County, California.” (Doc. 39-1 4§ 3—4).
Alonso contends that although she used the YouTube platform as a minor,
she did not create an account and therefore did not agree to the Terms at the
time the alleged events occurred. (Doc. 1 § 220). It was not until 2016, when
Alonso reached the age of majority, that she created a YouTube account and
electronically agreed to the Terms for the first time. (Doc. 39 at 4). Alonso
asserts that she did not ratify the agreement by agreeing to the Terms as an
adult. (Doc. 46 at 6).
In their Motion to Transfer, YouTube and Google rely on Alonso’s
electronic agreement to the Terms in 2016 and again in 2019.5 (Doc. 39 at 4-5).
They argue that because Alonso agreed to this forum-selection clause twice as
an adult prior to bringing this lawsuit, her claims squarely fall within the
mandatory provision. (Doc. 39 at 2).
Alonso’s argument that the forum-selection clause does not cover claims
arising from events that occurred before she agreed to the Terms falls short

5 The language of the forum-selection clause in effect in June 2010, when Alonso
first watched James’s YouTube videos, is the same as in November 2019, when Alonso
agreed to the Terms for the second time:
Any claim or dispute between you and YouTube that arises in whole or in
part from the Service shall be decided exclusively by a court of competent
jurisdiction located in Santa Clara County, California.
(Doc. 39-4 J 14; Doc. 39-3 4 14).

rc

because it is contrary to the broad language of the agreement and to caselaw
interpreting similar agreements. YouTube’s forum-selection clause applies to
“[a]ny claim... that arises in whole or in part from the Service.” (Doc. 39-3
| 14).
The term “Service” is defined as “the YouTube website [and] any YouTube
products, software, data feeds, and services provided to you on, from, or through
the YouTube website.” (id. § 1(A)). The phrase “that arises ...from the
Service,” much like the phrase “arising under or in connection with this
Agreement,” is interpreted broadly and covers “all causes of action arising
directly or indirectly from the business relationship evidenced by the contract.”
Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 810 F.2d 1066, 1070 (11th Cir. 1987), affd,
487 U.S. 22 (1988) (enforcing a forum-selection clause applicable to all disputes
“arising under or in connection with this Agreement’).
Similar language was used in the arbitration agreement at issue in Muniz
vu. Sharp Deal Auto Repair, Inc., No. 14-20460-CIV, 2014 WL 12609466 (S.D.
Fla. July 7, 2014). The agreement in Muniz stated, “Company and Employee
agree that any legal dispute between them, arising out of Employee’s
employment by Company, shall be resolved by binding arbitration.” Muniz, 2014
WL 12609466, at *1. The court in Muniz found that where there is no “effective
date,” the agreement will apply to “disputes occurring in part prior to the
execution of the... agreement.” Jd. at *3 n.2.

Alonso erroneously relies on pre-Atlantic Marine case law to argue that in
moving to transfer venue, Defendants “have a heightened burden” and can only
succeed “where the balance of convenience of the parties strongly favors the
moving party.” (Doc. 46 at 10). In Atlantic Marine, the Supreme Court clarified
that while normally “a district court considering a § 1404(a) motion must
evaluate both the private interests of the parties and public-interest
considerations,” where a valid forum-selection clause exists, it should be “given
controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases.” Atl. Marine, 571 U.S.
at 62 (citing Stewart, 487 U.S. at 33). Therefore, it is Alonso who carries the
“burden of showing that public-interest factors overwhelmingly disfavor a
transfer.” Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 66. She has not done so.
Finally, Alonso argues that the interest of justice disfavors transferring
the case pursuant to the forum-selection clause. However, “[i]n all but the most
unusual cases... ‘the interest of justice’ is served by holding parties to their
bargain.” Jd. This is not an unusual case. The forum-selection clause is thus
valid and enforceable.
B. James and Lucas Jackson
The Jacksons argue for transfer to the Western District of Washington
because they reside there and it would be more convenient for them. (Doc. 33 at
2). YouTube and Google, however, argue that the Jacksons are bound by the
forum-selection clause because they agreed to the Terms when they made their

YouTube accounts. (Doc. 39 at 4). The Jacksons do not deny this in their
response to YouTube and Google’s motion. (See Doc. 45). They merely state that
“there’s no reason to bootstrap [Alonso]’s claims against James and Lucas
Jackson into a forum selection clause that does not apply to the facts alleged.”
(Id. at 3). However, not only do Alonso’s alleged facts implicate the Jacksons’
use of YouTube as a means of contacting her, (see Doc. 1 937), but also the
Jacksons were paid by YouTube and Google as part of the YPP (see Doc. 1 4109-
110), necessarily implicating them in the dispute between Alonso and the two
companies. Therefore, it is appropriate to transfer this entire action to the
Northern District of California.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, itis ORDERED as follows:
1. The Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California
(Doc. 39) filed by Defendants YouTube, LLC and Google, LLC is
GRANTED.
2. The Motion to Transfer Venue to the Western District of Washington
(Doc. 33) filed by Defendants James and Lucas Jackson is DENIED.
3. This action is transferred to the Northern District of California, San
Jose Division.

4. After transfer, the clerk shall close this case.

ra
DONE and ORDERED on September 2-5-2023.

JOHN ANTOON II
United States District Judge
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10114144. Public record. Not legal advice.