414
YouTube Premium Is Not Ad-Free as Advertised, Class Action Lawsuit Claims (www.classaction.org)
submitted 1 week ago by 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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 1 week 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 days ago*

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    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....

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 week ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 week 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent