1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 ____________________ 4 5 August Term, 2020 6 7 (Argued: December 10, 2020 Decided: July 21, 2021) 8 9 Docket No. 20-616 10 11 ____________________ 12 13 JAMES DOMEN, AN INDIVIDUAL, CHURCH UNITED, A 14 CALIFORNIA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, 15 16 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 17 18 v. 20-616-cv 19 20 VIMEO, INC., A DELAWARE FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, 21 22 Defendant-Appellee. 23 24 ____________________ 25 26 Before: POOLER, WESLEY, and CARNEY, Circuit Judges. 27 1 Appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern

2 District of New York (Stewart D. Aaron, M.J.) dismissing plaintiffs’ claims alleging

3 discrimination based on sexual orientation and religion under federal and state

4 law. Having vacated our previous opinion, dated March 11, 2021, we file this

5 amended opinion in its place. James Domen and Church United allege that Vimeo,

6 Inc., unlawfully discriminated against them by deleting Church United’s account

7 from its online video hosting platform. We agree with the district court that Section

8 230(c)(2) of the Communications Decency Act protects Vimeo, Inc., from this suit

9 and that Appellants have failed to state a claim for relief. Therefore, we AFFIRM 10 the judgment of the district court. 11 ____________________ 12 NADA N. HIGUERA, Tyler & Bursch, LLP (Robert H. 13 Tyler, on the brief), Murrieta, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. 14 15 MICHAEL A. CHEAH, General Counsel, Vimeo, Inc., 16 New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee. 17 18 Jean-Paul Jassy, Kevin L. Vick, Elizabeth H. Baldridge, 19 Jassy Vick Carolan LLP, Los Angeles, CA (on the brief), 20 for Defendant-Appellee. 21 22 Samuel C. Leifer, Patrick J. Carome, Ari Holtzblatt,

2 1 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, 2 MA and Washington, DC, for The Internet Association, 3 amicus curiae in support of Defendant-Appellee. 4 POOLER, Circuit Judge:

5 Plaintiffs-Appellants James Domen and Church United allege that Vimeo,

6 Inc., discriminated against them on the basis of their religion and sexual

7 orientation by deleting Church United’s account from Vimeo’s online video

8 hosting platform. The district court granted Vimeo’s motion to dismiss on the

9 grounds that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) protects 10 Vimeo from this suit and that Appellants failed to state a claim. The district court 11 concluded that Vimeo deleted Church United’s account because of Church 12 United’s violation of Vimeo’s published content policy barring the promotion of 13 sexual orientation change efforts (“SOCE”) on its platform. Vimeo’s enforcement 14 of this policy, in turn, fell within the confines of the publisher immunity provided 15 by Section 230(c)(1) and the immunity to police content created by Section 16 230(c)(2). It also found that Appellants failed to state a claim on any of the counts 17 listed in the amended complaint. We previously affirmed the judgment of the 18 district court in an opinion dated March 11, 2021. Having vacated that decision, 19 we issue this amended opinion in its place.

3 1 Section 230 f