posted in Technology

beep@beep@piefed.world

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
www.classaction.orgYouTube Premium Is Not Ad-Free as Advertised, Class Action Lawsuit ClaimsA class action lawsuit claims that YouTube Premium does not provide ad-free video content as advertised.
TheTechnician27@TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
edited

Replying to @⁨beep@piefed.world⁩

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.

www.youtube.comYouTube Paid Service Terms of Service
Babalugats@Babalugats@feddit.uk

Replying to @⁨TheTechnician27@lemmy.world⁩

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.

boonhet@boonhet@sopuli.xyz

Replying to @⁨Babalugats@feddit.uk⁩

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.

en
Babalugats@Babalugats@feddit.uk
edited

Replying to @⁨boonhet@sopuli.xyz⁩

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.