YouTube Premium Is Not Ad-Free as Advertised, Class Action Lawsuit Claims

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1310997/youtube-premium-is-not-ad-free-as-advertised-class-action-lawsuit-claims

www.classaction.org/news/youtube-premium-is-not-ad-free-as-advertised-class-action-lawsuit-claims

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.

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.

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 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?