In brief

  • YouTube has fired back against Ripple, seeking a dismissal of the firm’s lawsuit.
  • Ripple filed suit in April, alleging YouTube wasn’t doing enough to stop XRP scams.
  • YouTube contends that such oversight isn’t its responsibility as a platform.

Crypto firm Ripple filed suit against YouTube in April, alleging that the video platform hadn’t taken enough action to stop XRP cryptocurrency giveaway scams on the site, and that it was earning ad revenue from the scam videos.

The Google-owned YouTube apparently disagrees. As spotted by Law360, YouTube filed a dismissal motion on Monday, urging the judge in the case to dismiss the case as the site believes it is protected by United States federal internet laws.

YouTube claims that the fact that such scam videos—in which posters claim to represent Ripple in fraudulent XRP giveaways—are shared by third-party creators means that the platform is not responsible for the content of the videos. The site’s lawyers pointed to Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act in its defense.

"Plaintiffs wish to hold YouTube liable for not acting more aggressively to monitor, block, and remove the material that third-party fraudsters have posted," YouTube wrote in the motion. "Section 230 categorically bars such claims and requires dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs' state-law causes of action.”

In April, Ripple alleged that such scams have damaged the reputation of the company and CEO Brad Garlinghouse, and that YouTube had not been responsive enough to address its claims. Ripple set out a number of demands in a blog post shared alongside the lawsuit filing.

“This lawsuit calls on the video platform to do a number of things,” reads the blog post. “First, to be more aggressive and proactive in identifying these scams, before they’re posted. Second, faster removal of these scams once they are identified and lastly, to not profit from these scams.”

While Ripple’s suit alleged that such scams violate Garlinghouse’s right of publicity, given their use of his name and likeness for commercial means without permission, YouTube asserted in its dismissal motion that managing those claims isn’t its responsibility

"Plaintiffs do not allege that YouTube had knowledge of any specific instances of trademark infringement that it failed to remove, and as a matter of law YouTube had no affirmative obligation to preemptively seek out and remove potentially infringing content,” reads the filing.