this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
267 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
87853 readers
2355 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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:
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:
Frivolous-ass, lying-ass lawsuit.
You can't advertise one thing and then just add "nah j/k" in the ToS and think you're off the hook
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.
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.
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.
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.
They... what. You just cut off the two most relevant sentences, namely the ones about sponsored segments etc. They literally say outright that sponsored content by creators will appear in videos, video descriptions, etc., and you just thought to remove that part of the quote "because it's devastating to my case!"
They're trying to claim specifically that it's false advertising because there are sponsored segments, which as you (or if nothing else, a reasonable observer) can see is completely debunked.
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....
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 in order to rave 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.
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?
Ianal, but I believe laws like this usually have a "reasonable expectation" component to them. Imo, ad free means Google isn't injecting their own ads before or during videos, with the exception of ads during live events. I believe they have lived up to that and more with the built in functionality to detect and skip creator ads. I think the explicit writing in the ToS further defends their position, but by itself isn't a definitive defense. So I think the prosecution has to somehow convince a judge that they were actually deceived by the whole package, the marketing and defend against the very clearly stated section in the ToS. That to me is a tall order and I think Google wins.
I claim not to care to keep up with this after this thread because it's obviously doomed. I do, however, care enough to debunk it when it's shared on Lemmy like it has any chance of success.
I don't understand how you got "emotional" from my last comment where all I did was make a matter-of-fact statement followed by a joke about MrBeast CBT.
Is the lawsuit regarding the marketing of the product or the functionality of the product?
I think you might be emotional because you keep ignoring the thing I am asking to discuss stuff I am not.
The marketing, to which Google is going to obviously and correctly respond that:
I'll repeat what I think you already saw in another comment: I'd love to have it shoved in my face when a judge or jury actually buys this (I'd assume plaintiffs would request a jury and the defendants would not) and Flemming et al. see a dime.
Just to add to this... some of the videos on YouTube are actual full ads. The content itself is an ad, so what should Google do? Ban YouTube Premium users from watching those videos? (I'm thinking like old Superbowl ads)
I don't see how Google could possibly make a determination of what is and isn't an ad, when Sponsor Block can barely figure out the categories. I doubt we could expect creators to self-identity sponsored segments, and I could easily see that system being abused.
People get really creative with their sponsors sometimes, doing entire skits to try and get you to keep watching. There's no clear way to determine what an ad even is when it's uploaded by the creator.
I'll literally watch Map Men sponsor segments on purpose (along with a few others)
It’s not bad faith. No ads means no ads not no ads* well actually. No reasonable person would expect ads in the middle of their ad free content. Regular people shouldn’t have to know the intricacies of how YouTube creators get paid to understand what ad free means. No ads means no damned ads.
Youtube Premium has YouTube remove the ads that they have control over. YouTube only has control of the ads that they add to the uploaded video, on either end or mid-rolls. They do not have control of the video content itself which is where creators add their own sponsorship stuff.
We really want YouTube to have unilateral control to determine what is and isn't an ad, and to remove sponsored advertising that they are not a part of in uploaded content? Something that would also clearly be a conflict of interest as they are an advertising partner.
I don't think anyone want youtube to remove the ads. They just want Youtube to advertise honestly. If it can't remove all ads, don't advertise completely ad-free videos.
If you go to YouTube to watch a commercial (here is an example for Orangina https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrkUDm9pnIw), should the whole video be blocked? YouTube provide a video hosting service and they add commercials on top of that.
I find it unreasonable to demand that YouTube essentially remove content from within the video. That would just end back in the EU "protect-the-children"-Chat Control area of the debate. You could have uploaders mark their videos as containing marketing (and perhaps they do) but enforcement would still be difficult given the sheer volume of videos.
I already wrote no one is demanding they remove all ads. But they can't describe premium as "removes all ads".
No one reasonable will demand I sell them the statue of liberty. I can't do that. But I am still not allowed to advertise that I have Statue of Liberty for sale. The issue isn't youtube not removing these ads. The issue is they claimed they would for premium.
I always understood "removes all ads" and removing all ads placed in their product by them. With this understanding, I think asking them to remove all ads would mean to in some way enforce uploaders to not have ads in their videos if you are showing them to a premium user.
But I can understand how someone else interprets "removes all ads" as delivering an experience free from all ads of any kind, including those placed in the video by uploaders.
Well, it is what it says on the label. Sure, you may have enough knowledge to understand it is impossible, but some people being able to spot a scam doesn't make it less of a scam. And it doesn't mean the people who don't know that much about how youtube works and get scammed should be unable to sue.
Forcing them to label adsegements and autoskipping them is possible and protects consumers from shadow ads that are increasingly more common nowadays.
Still that is not what I expect from YouTube premium.
Technically the "often skipped" section is the sponsored content.
But I suspect this is fed through user behaviour and not content detection
It's also not mandatory labeling of ads. Which YouTube could force on their creating users and should for consumer protection.
And they have tools available to mark the video as "sponsored"
YouTube also provides a pretty handy tool for getting past those. There's a DOT located right where the sponsored section of any YouTube video ends that you can fast forward right to.
Does YouTube insert their own ads into streamed content on yt premium?
No. But they do occasionally advertise their TV and movie rental services as videos in the feeds.
It's about false advertising. They advertise it as being ad-free, and then say in the TOS that there are, in fact, still ads.
TOS can clarify details of a service and set limitations and boundaries, but they do not justify deceitful advertising.
The end result will likely be a settlement with YouTube adding an asterisk on the ad itself that clarifies that users will still see advertisements inserted by the creators.
The problem is that they advertise "No ads!" Then on the ToS it says "Some ads!".
Honestly it's reason enough for me to not uses premium. I'm going to use an app to block that anyway, no point paying for the other ads
100% agree I get premium through my phone provider and I still watch videos were they have a paid sponsor and since I support the content creators I don't mind the sponsor ad the video.
And YT provides a disguised sponsorblock on top
It's not often, but yeah, sometimes I'll get a "Jump Ahead >>>" button overlay that skips the sponsor ad-read and/or a clear auto-generated "segment" that is the sponsor ad-read.
Still, I never expected YT Red to remove uploaded content, only to stop inserted advertisements.
Haha, YT Red.
Now that is an old name of a better time.
That's what it was called when I started getting it for free with my subscription to Google Play Music. :)
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.
Not since Pewds made some nazi jokes 9 years ago. Think they're only now getting back to where they were before that.
There are also a ton more people doing a lot of niches, so now you get fewer views.
That I can agree on, but then again, how would they even sell their product if there's no advertisement? The companies that don't charge too much and then stuff some of it into advertisement, tend to go under.
Creator doesn't really know if you have premium or not and many users (me) will also have adblock so they don't get a cent from these views. That's why many will show you ad-free videos on Patreon or Nebula. No sponsor segments if they know you're a paying customer.
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.
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.
So do I; believe me, I went into this hoping Google had badly fucked up, which is why I was admittedly miffed enough to write that comment and to try to prove myself wrong in the edit. Very "that was just a bunch of cheap walk cycles!" energy; I wanted the lost episode.