You must log in or register to comment.
18 daysgiven 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 18 days
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…
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.
- 18 days
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?
- architect@thelemmy.clubEnglish13 days
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.
- halcyoncmdr@piefed.socialEnglish18 days
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.
- Akrenion@slrpnk.netEnglish18 days
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- Akrenion@slrpnk.netEnglish18 days
It’s also not mandatory labeling of ads. Which YouTube could force on their creating users and should for consumer protection.
- 18 days
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.
- 18 days
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.
- 18 days
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.
- 18 days
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.
- 18 days
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.
- buddascrayon@lemmy.worldEnglish17 days
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.
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.
- bss03@infosec.pubEnglish18 days
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.
- bss03@infosec.pubEnglish17 days
That’s what it was called when I started getting it for free with my subscription to Google Play Music. :)
- sem@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish18 days
Does YouTube insert their own ads into streamed content on yt premium?
- mkwt@lemmy.worldEnglish18 days
No. But they do occasionally advertise their TV and movie rental services as videos in the feeds.
Havent seen that on the TV app and because I use uBlock, I can’t comment on the desktop/mobile version of the website
- chiliedogg@lemmy.worldEnglish17 days
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.
- Railcar8095@lemmy.worldEnglish17 days
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
- Babalugats@feddit.ukEnglish18 days
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.
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.worldEnglish18 days
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.
I hate that I’m defending Google here
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.
- boonhet@sopuli.xyzEnglish18 days
Creators already get paid very well for posting on YouTube.
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.
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…
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.
But if a creator has ads on premium that costs x amount each month.
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.
- Babalugats@feddit.ukEnglish18 days
There are also a ton more people doing a lot of niches, so now you get fewer views.
So it’s tougher to crack. Surely a better way to rise to the top would be to have fewer or no adverts, and better content.
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.
I am not against advertising as a tool. I’m mainly referring to the companies that will pay crazy money for advertising, and pass that expense on to the end users. Blanket advertising, shouldn’t be allowed, it also allows the bigger, wealthier companies to drown out the smaller and start up companies.
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.
That’s why YouTube Premium should be the same as Patreon or Nebula. The creators should be querying YouTube about working something out there, instead of hitting the users with ads that they thought they had paid to get rid of.
I also would suspect that this case would be more about about the letter of the law, and not about what’s expected from the creators etc. If YouTube are marketing an ad free experience to people that pay for the service, then this is what it should be. Overall, if anything, this case should work out better for everyone except probably Google. YouTube would have to find a better way/payment to allow creators to have two videos without making too much extra work for them. One for premium and one for non premium.
There is still product placement etc. Subtle suggestions and other methods that I’m sure many businesses would still pay for.
- drdalek@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish18 days
ReVanced is Free and AD free. Ublock origin on Firefox is still seamless.
That isn’t what this is about, unless you’re implying Sponsor Block support, as this lawsuit is related to creator-inserted ads.
Also, use Morphe now.
Iirc most the ReVanced devs left due to some kinda conflict with the dev spearheading it. Morphe is the work of several ex-ReV devs working together specifically to evade that one guy, and ReV’s update code is mostly being pulled from Morphe anyway because the devs that left were doing most of the work, so that one guy is copying them back into ReV.
But hey that’s just what 8ve heard from other Lemmings, idk much more than that. Just that any updates to ReV are basically just delayed-repackaged Morphe code anyway.
Thanks, good to know! Drama be drama-ing if you don’t have a good governance model …
Are you new to open source software? Original devs make a mistake or leave or something, and someone forks it. It isn’t that uncommon.
- SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish17 days
Morphe’s patching Ui is horrible. Even though it allows for more third party sources (though it’s insecure), I still prefer using the revanced manager one, which does not look like an emoji filled slop generated simplified app.
- Squizzy@lemmy.worldEnglish18 days
If I could get spotify and revanced into my Home Assistant display I think I would be complete.
- 18 days
Revanced - Video & Music? With a 1,3 (out of 5) ⭐ review score on the Playstore? Apparently full of adds? That apparently needs consent for 121 vendors and 74 advertising vendors?
Maybe I am missing something and I should sideload?
- Glytch@lemmy.worldEnglish18 days
You are definitely missing something and should side load from a trusted source.
Why would you think that Google would let a working YouTube-ad evader on the play store?
- Hobo@lemmy.worldEnglish17 days
On the other side of that it’s super shitty that they let a fake app that is ad spam named revanced on the app store.
Don’tbe extra evil.
Use Morphe now, it’s a fork of ReVanced. It’s great. You need to get the patcher from their website, and patch the YouTube app yourself. They make it pretty easy.
- EdTheMessenger@lemmy.worldEnglish17 days
Obviously an app removing ads from YouTube wouldn’t be published to the official store
- Railcar8095@lemmy.worldEnglish17 days
I think they must likely use google servers, would be weird of it was on AWS right?
It’s paid from the same source as the rest of YouTube. Do you think google sends them a bill or something?
- greybeard@feddit.onlineEnglish17 days
There are definitely still ads, I’m not talking about the creator inserted ones, but there is a banner that loves popping up that says “view products”, directing users away from the video to a list of products where Google gets a cut of the sales. And lately, I’ve been getting ads for Paramount Plus videos in the middle of my feed. Oh, and then there is putting “Member Only” videos in my feed attempting to upsell me on memberships to creators.
Those are all 100% controlled by Google.
