• TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    given that advertisements and interruptions appear frequently during streamed content, including those inserted by the creator.

    Nah, this is dumb as fuck. No reasonable person reading the ToS would assume the creators themselves are restricted from inserting sponsored segments and that YouTube is somehow liable for removing them. Where would this even end? Would GamersNexus quickly advertising their t-shirts count?

    Seems likely to fail unless YouTube themselves are failing not to insert ads on Premium.

    —A religious SponsorBlock user


    Edit: So looking at the ToS, if we scroll down to section 7, we see the word “features” hyperlinked to. This page then reads:

    With YouTube Premium, you can watch millions of videos without interruptions by ads before and during a video. You will also not see third-party banner ads and search ads.

    You may still see branding or promotions embedded in the content by the creator, as well as promotional links, shelves and features in and around the content that are added or enabled by the creator. These links, shelves and features could be for their website, merchandise, membership to their channel, event tickets, or other related destinations that they are promoting. Ads or promotions may also appear on Primetime Channels, during live events streamed on YouTube, such as sporting events.

    So unless they just changed it in response to this lawsuit, it categorically addresses it even though a reasonable person would likely understand without this disclaimer.


    Edit 2: Just to make sure this wasn’t changed in resoonse to the suit. Lawsuit was filed July 14, 2026. This was the ToS page on December 30, 2025, which still includes the link to “Features”. Looking at an archive captured Christmas 2025, the features page still states:

    You may still see branding or promotions embedded in the content by the creator, as well as promotional links, shelves and features in and around the content that are added or enabled by the creator. These links, shelves and features could be for their website, merchandise, membership to their channel, event tickets, or other related destinations that they are promoting. Ads or promotions may also appear during live events streamed on YouTube, such as sporting events.


    Frivolous-ass, lying-ass lawsuit.

    • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 hour ago

      You can’t advertise one thing and then just add “nah j/k” in the ToS and think you’re off the hook

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        26 minutes ago

        The lawsuit tries to claim that the terms of service reinforce this, when in reality, they directly contradict this already-bad-faith interpretation of what Google advertises. “Restrictions apply” is extremely normal for any advertisement and is effective in negating claims of false advertising provided they clarify what a reasonable person could plausibly already assume.

        and think you’re off the hook

        Come back to me when Flemming et al. win this lawsuit. Even a token settlement, come back and rub it in my face. I encourage you, because I won’t be wasting the time to keep up with this doomed nonsense.

        • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          52 minutes ago

          Ads or promotions may also appear during live events streamed on YouTube, such as sporting events.

          I don’t have strong opinions but it looks like they’re referring to this phrasing in the ToS which suggests ads will only appear in sporting events. That’s the ToS connection. But otherwise, they advertise YouTube as an ad free experience which just isn’t true.

          • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            41 minutes ago

            Edit: Oh, I see, you meant in the ToS themselves. But it clearly links directly and unambiguously to the ‘features’ page right at the start of the section.

            • andyburke@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              40 minutes ago

              Can a company market a submarine but then define a submarine as a lamp in their ToS and you’d just be out of luck?

              I haven’t read the case, but you seem to be coming from a place of “the terms absolve them” when the suit may be more about false advertising?

              I am a premium subscriber and don’t get a lot of ads, but I have also noticed some UX changes recently that do indeed seem kinda dark pattern/marketing-ish.

              I will be mildly watching this hoping for that sweet $2.37 settlement check…

              • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                30 minutes ago

                Can a company market a submarine but then define a submarine as a lamp in their ToS and you’d just be out of luck?

                No, because a ToS can’t cure an obviously false advertisement, but when looking at what a reasonable consumer would take away from the advertisement, you can see the ToS is clarifying what a reasonable person would already assume – namely that MrBeast, before sending 42 junior high students to fight to the death in a chocolate factory, spending 45 seconds raving about how much he loves to put Hello Kitty-branded capsaicin under his foreskin isn’t something that YouTube Premium is going to get rid of.

                • andyburke@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  23 minutes ago

                  You seem very emotional about this while.claiming to not care.

                  I don’t feel you answered my question on if your criticisms apply - is this about the ToS or about their marketing?

    • Babalugats@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Unless they are referring to paid advertisements by the creators.

      The creators would presumably take a cut/fee from YouTube for showing their content ad-free. sponsorblock already does something similar.

      Creators already get paid very well for posting on YouTube.

      A good rule of thumb for me is, if I see adverts on YouTube and on TV for the same company or product, then they are charging too much…

      I choose to avoid them.

      if somebody is advertising a small company/startup etc…

      Go for it.

      But if a creator has ads on premium that costs x amount each month.

      Nahh…

      –An ultra religious sponsorblock and ublock and hater of mass marketing.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Please see my two edits regarding this. YouTube very clearly spells out that these sponsored segments are fair game for YouTube Premium. This lawsuit is utterly frivolous, and I hope it burns for being such a joke that I could debunk it in five minutes.

        • BassTurd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 minute ago

          Plus they have a built in functionality to detect and skip creator ads. Not that if they were actually legally responsible for blocking those that this would be an acceptable solution, but they aren’t, so this is a consumer bonus.

          I hate that I’m defending Google here, but I agree the lawsuit is frivolous.

      • mkwt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        36 minutes ago

        No. But they do occasionally advertise their TV and movie rental services as videos in the feeds.