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?

while.claiming to not care.

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.

regarding the marketing of the product or the functionality of the product?

The marketing, to which Google is going to obviously and correctly respond that:

• A reasonable consumer would not expect that “ad-free” means that creator-submitted sponsored material is not present in the videos, descriptions, etc., which they create.
• There’s a “Restrictions Apply” link taking you to the ToS, which itself in the “Advertising” section prominently – literally the first word – links directly to a FAQ stating that YouTube Premium has nothing at all to do with blocking sponsored content.
• That is to say that the terms and FAQ clarify what a reasonable consumer would already assume.

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)

We used to have a ftc that gave a shit about this. Now yall have lost the plot. If you’re being fucking paid to promote a product that’s a fucking ad. I don’t give a fuck if you made a movie for it. There should be massive sponsored banners right the entire sponsored ad.

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.