YouTube Premium Is Not Ad-Free as Advertised, Class Action Lawsuit Claims

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit alleges that YouTube Premium is not as ad-free as advertised given that advertisements and interruptions appear frequently during streamed content, including those inserted by the creator.

Get class action lawsuit and class action settlement news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter.

The 36-page false advertising lawsuit contends that YouTube Premium, a paid monthly subscription service with reportedly 125 million subscribers, does not provide what consumers bargained for given that the purportedly ad-free streaming experience, just like standard YouTube, is “littered” with intrusive sponsor segments that often have nothing to do with the streaming content.

“This includes ads for everything from insurance companies to dietary supplements to new models of vehicles for purchase,” the complaint states. “Ads appear both before and during video content, interrupting content flow just as they do on YouTube Premium Lite and standard YouTube.”

According to the case, YouTube’s representations that its premium platform is ad-free and without interruptions are “unambiguous, unqualified, and appear on the very first pages” a user encounters when exploring membership options. Per the case, a reasonable consumer would understand YouTube’s claims to mean that, in exchange for a monthly subscription (reportedly $15.99 in 2026), YouTube Premium will have neither ads nor interruptions, something reinforced in the platform’s terms of service.

The only reference to ads in the YouTube Premium terms of service is the disclosure that ads or promotions may appear during live streaming events, such as sporting events, the suit says.

“To the contrary, advertisements and interruptions frequently appear during streamed content, interrupting videos with commercials for everything from popular automobiles to marketing for local attorneys or dietary supplements,” the case emphasizes.

The lawsuit says that an article in YouTube’s Help Center attempts to justify the inclusion of ads on YouTube Premium, stating that members may still see branding, promotions, or promotional links embedded in videos.

The suit conveys that this language is an attempt by YouTube to mischaracterize ads as “promotions” without disclosure in YouTube Premium’s Terms of Service. The terms of service also do not disclose that this information is only available in the Help Center, the complaint says, calling the lack of disclosure “word games and double talk.”

Regardless of how the YouTube Premium ads are characterized by YouTube, subscribers are nevertheless interrupted by “annoying” ads that pause videos, transition to advertising content peddling a particular product or service, and transition back to the video being watched, the filing relays.

The YouTube Premium class action lawsuit looks to cover all adults in the United States who, during the applicable limitations period, subscribed to YouTube Premium for one or more months under the reasonable (but mistaken) belief that, in exchange for monthly subscription fees, they would receive an ad-free and uninterrupted experience.

Are you owed unclaimed settlement money? Check out our class action rebates page full of open class action settlements.