Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Scope and definition of the authorised class, limited to users in Québec whose YouTube videos related to Covid-19 were censored or inaccessible since 15 March 2020
• Procedural compliance with Québec’s class action framework, including prior authorization and the requirement for a clear, concise notice to members under article 590 C.p.c.
• Adequacy and fairness of the proposed bilingual (French and English) notice content and its capacity to properly inform class members of their rights and options
• Proportionality and effectiveness of the proposed publication methods, notably a 30-day YouTube ad campaign, website posting, emails to identified members and registration on the class action registry
• Legal consequences of opting out versus remaining in the class, particularly the binding effect of future judgments and loss of any share in eventual settlements or judgments for those who exclude themselves
• Allocation of the financial burden of notice dissemination to Google LLC, without any quantified monetary award or costs order on the merits of the underlying censorship claims

Background and facts of the case

This case arises from allegations that YouTube, operated by Google LLC, censored or restricted access to videos related, directly or indirectly, to the Covid-19 pandemic for users in Québec. The representative plaintiff, Éloïse Boies, brought proceedings in the Superior Court of Québec (Class Actions Chamber) seeking to advance these claims as a class action on behalf of a defined group of affected users. The class (“Groupe”) is defined broadly to include any natural or legal person who used or visited YouTube since 15 March 2020 and whose Covid-19-related videos were censored, or who was unable to access such videos, while residing in Québec or having an establishment there. This captures both content creators whose videos were allegedly moderated or removed and users who were prevented from viewing Covid-related material on the platform. The underlying factual dispute concerns Google’s content moderation and access policies on YouTube as applied to Covid-19-related videos, and whether these practices unlawfully interfered with users’ access to such content in Québec. While the decision at hand does not address the merits, it sits in the broader context of debates over online “censorship,” platform responsibility and users’ informational rights during the pandemic.

Procedural history and class authorization

On 29 April 2024, the Superior Court of Québec authorized the class action and granted Ms. Boies the status of representative plaintiff for the defined class. The action thus moved from the preliminary authorization stage into the active litigation phase. Subsequently, on 25 July 2024, the plaintiff filed the originating application in the class action against Google LLC, formally setting out the claims to be pursued on behalf of the group. The present judgment, dated 14 October 2025, does not revisit authorization or liability. Instead, it focuses on an important procedural step that follows authorization: approval of the notice to class members and the protocol for its publication. In Québec class actions, once authorization is granted, the court must ensure that class members are informed of the existence of the proceeding, of their right to opt out, and of how the action may affect their rights.

Content and approval of the class notice

The parties reached agreement on the content of the authorization notice to be sent to class members. This notice, in both French and English, is reproduced as Annex A to the judgment. The Court carefully considered whether the proposed text complied with article 590 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs notices to class members in Québec class actions. The judge concluded that the notice is drafted in clear and concise terms and meets the statutory requirements. It explains, in accessible language, who is included in the group, the nature of the authorized class action, the rights of class members (including the right to exclude themselves), and the consequences of remaining in or leaving the group. On that basis, the Court approved both language versions of the notice. This approval confirms that, from a procedural standpoint, class members will be adequately informed of the litigation and their options, a key safeguard in collective proceedings.

Publication and dissemination protocol

Beyond the text of the notice itself, the Court also had to decide whether the proposed modes of publication were appropriate, effective and proportionate for reaching the class. The parties submitted a detailed dissemination protocol, which the Court endorsed. A central feature is a 30-day advertising campaign on YouTube, to be run by Concilia Services inc., whose proposal and cost estimate appear in Annex B of the judgment. This choice is tailored to the nature of the dispute: since the alleged wrongful conduct occurred on YouTube, the platform is also used to reach potential class members. In addition, the plaintiff’s lawyers must post the notice on their law firm website and email it directly to class members already identified by the plaintiff. They must also register the notice with the Québec Class Action Registry so that it is publicly accessible. The Court found that these combined measures constitute an efficient and proportionate way to bring the notice to the attention of group members, balancing outreach, cost and practicality.

Opt-out mechanism and legal consequences for class members

The judgment also fixes the timeline and legal effects of exclusion (opt-out). The earlier authorization judgment had set the exclusion period at 60 days from the date of the notice. In this follow-up decision, the Court refines that timeline by tying the opt-out deadline to the dissemination campaign. Specifically, the final date to opt out is set at 60 days following the last day of the 30-day YouTube advertising campaign. Until that deadline, any member of the group may exclude themselves by sending a completed and signed exclusion request to the clerk of the Superior Court, using the form attached to the judgment. The consequences of this choice are significant. A member who validly opts out before the deadline will no longer participate in the class action and will not receive any portion of funds that may eventually be recovered through judgment or settlement. Conversely, class members who do not exercise their right to exclude themselves by the deadline will be presumed to have chosen to participate. They will be bound by any judgment rendered in the class action and will share in any monetary relief, if and when it is obtained, subject to the eventual terms of distribution. This structure reflects the usual opt-out model of Québec class actions, where inaction leads to inclusion and binding effect.

Allocation of notice costs and absence of merits ruling

The judgment makes a specific order regarding the financial burden of the notice. The Court declares that the costs of disseminating the notice to class members are to be borne by the defendant, Google LLC. This means that Google is responsible for the expenses linked to the advertising campaign and other approved publication measures. However, the decision does not specify any exact amount or provide a quantified figure for those costs. The order is structural and allocational rather than a liquidated cost award. The judgment is expressly rendered “sans frais de justice,” indicating that, apart from the dissemination expenses imposed on Google, no judicial costs are awarded against either party at this stage. Importantly, this is not a decision on liability or damages. The Court does not determine whether Google’s alleged censorship practices were lawful or unlawful, nor does it assess any compensable harm. The merits of the allegations, including any substantive discussion of legal rights, platform policies or possible damages, remain to be decided in future proceedings.

Overall outcome and status of the case

In terms of outcome, this procedural judgment represents a further step in advancing the authorized class action brought by Éloïse Boies against Google LLC. The Court approves the French and English versions of the class notice, validates the proposed dissemination protocol, sets the opt-out deadline relative to the end of the advertising campaign, and clarifies the consequences of exclusion or participation for class members. The only clear allocation of financial responsibility in this decision is that Google LLC must bear the costs of disseminating the notice, but the judgment does not quantify these expenses, and there is no award of damages or judicial costs on the merits. There is therefore no “successful party” in the sense of a final victory on liability or compensation; the case remains ongoing, with the plaintiff authorized to proceed on behalf of the class and Google assuming the burden of notice-publication costs, the exact monetary amount of which cannot be determined from this judgment alone.