this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
254 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
86928 readers
2741 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
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)