16.  YouTube is an American video-sharing website, which permits content providers to  upload videos, to be viewed by members of the public worldwide.  Users can view, share, rate or  favorite videos, as well as add comments, and subscribe to channels of content providers whose  content they may enjoy and wish to view regularly.     17.  YouTube permits many forms of original content, including videos, television shows,  music videos, films, educational videos, short original videos, and other similar forms of content.  Content can include such areas as political speech, comedy, education, entertainment, or other forms  of artistic expression.  All other things equal, there are no limits on the types of content that one is  physically able to post on YouTube.     18.  A large percentage of YouTube’s traffic relates to original content providers who create  original videos for the express purpose of gathering subscribers to their YouTube Channel.  Views  and subscribers typically translate into revenue for the content providers, due to YouTube’s  monetization schedule.     50.  Plaintiffs bring this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of the  following Class and Subclasses:  The Class  All content providers in the United States who uploaded content on  YouTube.com at any point since 2006, and whose videos were  available for public viewing on YouTube.com during the time frame  of March 1, 2017 to present.   Excluded from the proposed Class are YouTube’s officers, directors, legal representatives,  successors, and assigns; any entity in which YouTube has a controlling interest; and judicial officers  to whom this case is assigned and their immediate family members.   51.  Plaintiffs reserve the ability to modify the definition of the proposed Class before the  Court determines whether class certification is warranted.   60.  Plaintiffs incorporate the above allegations by reference.   61.  YouTube’s conduct resulted from policies that YouTube contrived, ratified, and  implemented in California.     62.  YouTube’s conduct is unlawful, in violation of the UCL, because it contravenes the  legislatively declared policy against unfair methods of business competition. Additionally,  YouTube’s conduct is unlawful because, as set forth below, it violates California Contract Law  principles, including breach of contract, breach of quasi-contract, breach of good faith and fair  dealing, common law fraud and tortious interference with contractual relations and/or prospective  economic advantage.   71.  Plaintiffs incorporate the above allegations by reference.   72.  YouTube’s conduct resulted from policies that YouTube contrived, ratified, and  implemented in California.   73.  YouTube’s conduct violates the UCL’s prohibition of fraudulent business practices.   74.  To induce the posting of content on YouTube.com, which in turn led to advertising  partners to contract with YouTube, YouTube provided a monetization structure to members of the  public interested in becoming content providers.  YouTube provided very little information to content  providers about the structure of how they would be compensated under the monetization schedule,  but did historically provide fair compensation to content providers in exchange for the revenue  generated as a result of the artistic and creative work they created and posted on YouTube.com.   Historically, content providers came to expect a certain return on investment in dealing with  YouTube under this structure, which remained steady and predictable.  Plaintiffs relied on the fact  that historically they could expect a certain return on investment to the content they created, as  described above.     75.  In March of 2017, YouTube implemented new terms and conditions to the  arrangement, including by implementing new AdSense algorithms that targeted and demonetized  certain types of content.  YouTube never explained to content providers that it would be doing this, or  that it did do this.  YouTube did this for personal gain, i.e. to prevent advertising partners from  leaving YouTube; however the result was severely detrimental to content providers, including  Plaintiffs.     87.  Plaintiffs incorporate the above allegations by reference.   88.  At the time YouTube unilaterally altered the terms of its monetization structure for  content providers, Plaintiffs and Class members had entered into business transactions with third- party advertisers, purchasers, and other businesses, which were premised in large part off of  Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ ability to monetize their content and receive both advertising revenue  and views on YouTube.  These sales transactions involved various contractual conditions of sale.   89.  For instance, Plaintiffs were negotiating a contract with a third party who wanted to  purchase the rights to own and monetize their YouTube videos.  After Adpocalypse, the value of  Plaintiffs’ channel plummeted, because predicting future advertising revenue through YouTube’s  monetization schedule became highly challenging since YouTube took it upon itself to change the  rules of monetization without notice, and to the detriment of its content providers.     90.  YouTube was aware that Plaintiffs and Class members routinely enter into such related  contracts with third parties, and that changes to its monetization structure, including demonetizing  videos without notice or recourse, and altering the terms by which videos would receive  compensation would have a direct impact on these contractual arrangements.   91.  Plaintiffs had multiple contractual deals fall through or devalued as a direct attributable  result of YouTube’s aforementioned conduct.     92.  YouTube’s interference with the contractual conditions of sale between Plaintiffs and  Class members, on one hand, and third-party marketers and investors, on the other hand, was  intentional and wrongful.   Fraudulent Business Practices in Violation of the Unfair Competition Law,  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.  (On Behalf of the Class)   Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations and/or Prospective Economic Advantage   (On Behalf of the Class)   Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices in Violation of the Unfair Competition Law,  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.  (On Behalf of the Class)  