Plug and Play Exposé Targeted by Fast-Tracked Privacy Complaint , Censorship, Coercion, Suppression, Intimidation— Our Official Response

Just one hour after releasing our video at around 16:00 CEST, we received a privacy complaint at 17:07 CEST — citing timestamps 2:15:31 and 2:21:22 — alleging that we disclosed private, identifiable information. These timestamps reference screenshots featuring Alfredo Gomez, who is the Program Manager for Plug and Play Armenia, a public figure whose name has already been disclosed in a publicly funded program by a public ministry and documented in public records.

The complaint asserts that we revealed private information, but several key points make it clear that no personally identifiable information (PII) was disclosed:

1. Public Figure: Alfredo Gomez’s name and role have already been publicly disclosed in official documents.
2. No Phone Number Disclosed: The phone number shown is partial and does not provide sufficient data to identify or contact Mr. Gomez.
3. Public Interest: The messages relate to a publicly funded program, making them a matter of public concern rather than purely private information.
4. Limited Purpose of Privacy Laws: Privacy laws cannot be used to conceal potential wrongdoing or shield public figures from scrutiny, especially concerning publicly funded initiatives. GDPR and related laws allow for legitimate public interest disclosures, and journalism retains strong protections, similar to what you might see in traditional news reporting.

Moreover, the suspicious timing of this privacy complaint — finding these specific screenshots within a 2-hour-40-minute video just one hour after it was published — raises serious concerns about surveillance or espionage. The probability of identifying exact timestamps so quickly without prior knowledge is extraordinarily low (we estimate less than 0.001%), suggesting there may have been targeted monitoring or insider information.

Below is the official email we sent to YouTube Legal Support, detailing our objection to the privacy complaint and outlining why we believe this constitutes an abuse of process:

To the YouTube Legal Support Team,

We are writing to strongly object to the privacy complaint lodged against our video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOzs03oFjFs, and to raise serious concerns about the manner in which this complaint was submitted, which itself may constitute a privacy violation and abuse of process.

1. Suspicious Timing and Potential Abuse of Connections:

The video in question is 2 hours and 40 minutes long. It was published at approximately 16:00 CEST. This privacy complaint was received at 17:07 CEST, citing specific timestamps (2:15:31 and 2:21:22). This rapid identification of specific points within a lengthy video, mere minutes after publication, raises serious concerns.

Plug and Play Tech Center, the subject of the video’s critical analysis, is a San Francisco-based startup accelerator with likely connections within the technology industry, potentially including YouTube/Google. The improbable speed with which this complaint was filed, targeting precise moments within a long video, strongly suggests one of two possibilities:

• Espionage/Surveillance: The complainant, or someone acting on their behalf, engaged in targeted surveillance of our channel and content, potentially violating our privacy and data protection rights under GDPR (as our channel is registered in the Netherlands).
• Abuse of Connections: The complainant leveraged connections within YouTube/Google to expedite the review and reporting process, bypassing standard procedures and potentially gaining unfair advantage.

We demand a full investigation into how the complainant was able to identify these specific timestamps so quickly after publication. This speed is statistically improbable without prior knowledge or unauthorized access to information. We believe this rapid reporting itself may constitute a violation of our privacy under GDPR.

2. Baseless Privacy Claim — No PII Violation:

The complaint targets a screenshot of a text message conversation with Alfredo Gomez, the program manager of Plug and Play Armenia. This complaint is entirely without merit and misrepresents both the content of the screenshot and the applicable legal standards. The screenshot does not contain any private, personally identifiable information (PII) that warrants removal under YouTube’s guidelines or applicable law. Specifically:

• Name (Alfredo Gomez): “Alfredo Gomez” is a common name. Its appearance in a professional context, relating to his role as program manager, does not constitute private information. It is publicly associated with the program.
• Partial Phone Number: The phone number that begins with <52 is partially obscured and incomplete. It cannot be used to identify or contact Mr. Gomez, and therefore poses no risk of doxxing or harassment. It doesn’t even remotely qualify as sensitive PII.
• Text Content: The content of the messages is the evidence of Mr. Gomez’s conduct as a program manager in a publicly funded initiative. It documents his responses to concerns about the program’s failings. This is a matter of significant public interest, and suppressing it would serve only to shield potential misconduct.
• Time Stamps Not considered PII.

3. Overriding Public Interest:

Even if the screenshot contained some marginally private information (which it does not), its publication is overwhelmingly justified by the public interest. YouTube’s own privacy guidelines acknowledge this exception. This video addresses:

• Alleged Misuse of Public Funds: The program in question received €1 million in public funding. The public has an undeniable right to know if those funds were misused or if the program failed to meet its obligations.
• Alleged Misconduct of a Public Figure (Limited-Purpose): As program manager, Alfredo Gomez is a limited-purpose public figure within the context of this publicly funded program. His communications in that role are subject to legitimate scrutiny.
• Serious Allegations of Psychological Abuse: The video presents evidence supporting allegations of “psychological torture” — a serious claim that demands public attention and investigation. The screenshot is direct evidence relevant to these allegations.
• Transparency and Accountability: This video is an act of holding a publicly funded program and its manager accountable. Censoring it would undermine democratic principles.

4. The Screenshot as Essential Evidence:

The screenshot is not a gratuitous inclusion; it is primary source evidence supporting the video’s claims. It is analogous to a journalist quoting a source to substantiate a report. Removing it would be akin to censoring a crucial piece of evidence, fundamentally undermining the credibility and impact of the video. Court rulings around the world consistently allow the publication of communications, even those originating in private settings, when they are relevant to matters of substantial public concern, particularly when they involve the conduct of public officials or those managing public funds.

5. Bad Faith Complaint and Abuse of Process:

This privacy complaint is not merely unfounded; it is a transparent and malicious attempt to abuse YouTube’s policies to silence legitimate criticism, suppress evidence of potential wrongdoing, and retaliate against LunarTech for exposing those alleged wrongs. It constitutes a strategic maneuver by Alfredo Gomez, or those acting on his behalf, to avoid accountability for his actions and the failures of the Plug and Play Armenia program. This behavior aligns with the definition of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

• Abuse of Process: YouTube’s privacy complaint mechanism is intended to protect individuals from genuine privacy violations, such as doxxing or the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive personal information. It is not intended to be a tool for censoring criticism, suppressing evidence of misconduct, or silencing dissent. Using the privacy complaint system for these illegitimate purposes constitutes an abuse of process. This is analogous to the tort of malicious prosecution, where legal processes are initiated for an improper purpose. As stated in Prosser & Keeton on Torts, “The gist of the action [for malicious prosecution] lies in the wrongful conduct in making the charge…with knowledge that it is false or without probable cause” (5th ed., § 119). While this is not a formal legal proceeding initiated by Gomez, he is invoking a platform’s quasi-judicial process (the complaint review) for an improper purpose.
• Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) Characteristics: This complaint exhibits classic characteristics of a SLAPP suit, even though it’s occurring on a platform rather than in a court:
• Targeting Speech on a Matter of Public Concern: The video addresses the alleged misuse of public funds and misconduct within a government-funded program — a quintessential matter of public concern.
• Imbalance of Power: Plug and Play, a large accelerator, and Gomez, its program manager, hold a position of power relative to LunarTech, a smaller startup.
• Intimidation and Censorship: The goal is clearly to intimidate LunarTech into silence and censor the video, rather than to address a genuine privacy violation.
• Lack of Merit: As detailed above, the privacy claim is utterly baseless. There is no legitimate privacy interest at stake.
• Chilling Effect: Allowing this complaint to succeed would have a chilling effect on free expression and public accountability. It would send a message that powerful individuals and organizations can use platform policies to silence critics and avoid scrutiny, even when public funds and potential wrongdoing are involved. This undermines the very purpose of platforms like YouTube, which are intended to facilitate the free exchange of information and ideas.
• Good Faith Requirement (Implied): While YouTube’s policies may not explicitly use the term “good faith,” the entire system is predicated on the assumption that complaints are filed honestly and with a legitimate purpose. Filing a complaint with the knowledge that it is baseless, and with the intent to cause harm (censorship, reputational damage) to the target, violates this implied requirement of good faith. This concept is analogous to the “implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing” found in contract law, which requires parties to act honestly and not undermine the purpose of the agreement. (See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205).
• Violation of Section 230 immunity, By knowingly submitting a false privacy complaint, Alfredo Gomez and Plug and Play may have forfeited any immunity they might otherwise have under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 generally protects online platforms from liability for content posted by users, but it does not shield individuals or entities who knowingly submit false or malicious complaints.

YouTube should not allow its platform and its internal processes to be weaponized in this way. To do so would be to condone the suppression of legitimate criticism, undermine the public interest, and enable a clear abuse of process. This complaint is not about privacy; it is about avoiding accountability. It is a textbook example of a bad faith attempt to manipulate a platform’s rules for personal and/or organizational gain, at the expense of free expression and the public’s right to know.

6. Legal Concepts and Defenses:

We are prepared to vigorously defend against this baseless complaint, invoking the following legal principles:

• Limited-Purpose Public Figure Doctrine: Alfredo Gomez’s role makes his communications relevant to the program subject to public scrutiny.
• Fair Comment/Criticism: Our commentary on Mr. Gomez’s communications is protected speech on a matter of public interest.
• Whistleblower Protection Principles: While not a formal whistleblower case, the principle of protecting those who expose potential wrongdoing is highly relevant.
• Unjust Enrichment: The broader context of alleged financial mismanagement reinforces the public interest in transparency.
• Truth as a Defense to Defamation: Should Mr. Gomez attempt to claim defamation, the truth of the statements in the video, supported by the screenshot, is an absolute defense.
• GDPR: We reiterate our concern that the reporting of this complaint may have violated GDPR, given the suspicious speed and precision.

7. Demand for Action:

We demand that YouTube:

1. Reject this baseless privacy complaint immediately.
2. Investigate the circumstances surrounding the submission of the complaint, including potential abuse of connections or unauthorized access to information.
3. Refrain from taking any action against our channel or video.
4. Uphold its commitment to free expression and transparency, particularly in matters of public interest involving the use of public funds.
5. Acknowledge that this report is a clear bad faith complaint.

We are confident that a thorough and impartial review will demonstrate that this complaint is without merit and represents a cynical attempt to suppress legitimate criticism. We are prepared to pursue all available legal avenues to protect our right to publish this information and to hold those responsible for this abuse of process accountable. We will not allow any form of manipulation of the system.

Sincerely,

LunarTech