Plaintiffs sued YouTube claiming it allowed and enabled a well-known scam in which fraudster’s take over control of a widely followed legitimate YouTube channels and then run false ad videos purporting to offer those who send in digital currency twice the amount they send in. Of course, the fraudsters make off with the contributed digital currency giving nothing in return. The opinion holds that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 USC 230) immunizes YouTube on plaintiff’s theories of negligent security procedures to prevent fraudsters from taking over valid YouTube channels, negligent design of the security protocols, failure to warn of the scam, knowingly selling the scam ads and recommending them to viewers, misuse of viewers’ information. However, it was possible that the complaint could be amended to state a non-preempted claim based on YouTube’s continuing to verify the hijacked channels as official channels of the true owner of the channel if plaintiffs can amend to state facts showing that the content that YouTube added, the channel verification, materially contributed to the alleged illegality of the fraudster’s scheme.