A class action lawsuit claims that YouTube Premium does not provide ad-free video content as advertised.
  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    23 days ago

    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.

    • xthexder@l.sw0.comEnglish
      0·
      23 days ago

      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.