Paige Elizabeth Sues YouTube, Google for $100M, CDA 230.

By Paige Elizabeth | Occupy Freedom

LOS ANGELES, CA— Occupy Freedom PAC founder Paige Elizabeth has filed a landmark federal lawsuit (Case No. 2:25-cv-07200-AB-PD) against YouTube LLC and its parent company, Google LLC. The complaint seeks $100,000,000.00 in monetary damages and demands urgent declaratory and injunctive relief to challenge the broad immunity granted to Big Tech under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230).

The suit is centered on the novel legal claim of "Digital Rape of a Woman"—a tort that argues for the non-consensual seizure, malicious alteration, and algorithmic weaponization of a woman’s protected speech and likeness. The complaint alleges that YouTube's proprietary algorithms acted not as neutral platforms but as an "active editorial force" and "co-author and propagator" of defamatory, humiliating content by prioritizing its promotion for profit, thereby forfeiting its Section 230 immunity.

This lawsuit is a critical step in the PAC's mission to establish the principle that when corporate algorithms actively monetize the abuse and exploitation of vulnerable voices, the companies behind them must be held accountable as publishers. Occupy Freedom PAC views this case as a pivotal battleground to force legal modernization and ensure that the digital landscape is governed by justice, not corporate greed.

Relief Sought Includes:

Monetary damages exceeding $100 Million.

A judicial declaration that Google and YouTube are not entitled to Section 230 immunity under these facts.

Injunctive relief prohibiting the continued publication of the malicious material.

Conclusion: The Pivotal Battle for Digital Justice

Paige Elizabeth and Occupy Freedom PAC are taking a direct stand against the Silicon Valley business model that has, in their view, prioritized corporate profit over user safety and fundamental rights. This lawsuit asks the federal court to recognize a new class of digital harm and to enforce a principle of responsibility that extends to the algorithmic functions of Big Tech. Should this case succeed, it would not only set a historic precedent but also dismantle the broad legal shield that many critics argue has allowed platforms to monetize abuse and exploitation with impunity. The outcome of Occupy Freedom PAC v. YouTube LLC, et al. will have profound implications for the future of free speech, digital autonomy, and corporate liability in the digital landscape.