This is the best summary I could come up with:

Mercola had tried to argue that YouTube owed him more than $75,000 in damages for breaching its own user contract and denying him access to his videos.

Over time, Mercola amassed 300,000 subscribers to a YouTube channel that "garnered 50 million views" by boosting professionally made videos that linked to his website, "which promotes natural health and provides health articles, optimal wellness products, medical news, and a free newsletter."

Mercola claimed that he first became aware that YouTube was planning to ban his channel when The Washington Post published an article about it.

In his complaint, he said that within six minutes of the Post's article publishing, he got a message that his channels were banned, effective immediately, for violating YouTube's new policy on vaccine misinformation.

Beeler rejected all these arguments, agreeing with YouTube that there was no breach of contract, no damages should be awarded, and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred Mercola's claims.

Commenting on Mercola's case, legal expert Eric Goldman wrote: "Lawsuits over content removals never succeed."

The original article contains 676 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!