this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026

414 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

87469 readers

3409 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

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

414

YouTube Premium Is Not Ad-Free as Advertised, Class Action Lawsuit Claims (www.classaction.org)

submitted 2 weeks ago by beep@piefed.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

65 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 135 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

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.

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And YT provides a disguised sponsorblock on top

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Haha, YT Red.

Now that is an old name of a better time.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 3 points 2 weeks ago

That's what it was called when I started getting it for free with my subscription to Google Play Music. :)

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

You can't advertise one thing and then just add "nah j/k" in the ToS and think you're off the hook

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

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.

load more comments (11 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 18 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

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.net 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Technically the "often skipped" section is the sponsored content.
But I suspect this is fed through user behaviour and not content detection

[–] Akrenion@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's also not mandatory labeling of ads. Which YouTube could force on their creating users and should for consumer protection.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

And they have tools available to mark the video as "sponsored"

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] captcha_incorrect@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Does YouTube insert their own ads into streamed content on yt premium?

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No. But they do occasionally advertise their TV and movie rental services as videos in the feeds.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

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.uk 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.xyz 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] drdalek@lemmy.dbzer0.com 43 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

ReVanced is Free and AD free. Ublock origin on Firefox is still seamless.

[–] Joelk111@lemmy.world 26 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Goddamn why more churn? The fuck is wrong with ReVanced?

[–] Manticore@lemmy.nz 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] flying_sheep@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

Thanks, good to know! Drama be drama-ing if you don't have a good governance model …

[–] Joelk111@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] Zagorath@quokk.au 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

ReVanced also includes Sponsor Block.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] SlimePirate@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

If I could get spotify and revanced into my Home Assistant display I think I would be complete.

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] greybeard@feddit.online 14 points 2 weeks ago

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.

load more comments