YouTuber must pay $40K in attorneys’ fees for daft “reverse censorship” suit

>A United States magistrate judge in California, Virginia K. DeMarchi, ordered Daniels to pay YouTube $38,576 for asserting a First Amendment claim that “clearly lacked merit and was frivolous from the outset.”

>“None of his arguments are persuasive, as he articulated no plausible legal theory—novel or otherwise—for holding private entities liable as government actors in the circumstances presented,” DeMarchi wrote in the order granting attorney fees to Alphabet

I'm curious to see a breakdown of how that $38,576 was necessary to spend to defend against a clearly frivolous suit.