Is YouTube billing - and not refunding - advertisers for ads served on non-conforming or potentially copyright infringing content? Are its algorithms actively promoting this content to consumers, and deleting details about this content from advertisers’ placement reports?
adalytics.io
Ads observed on YouTube videos which were later deleted from the platform and redacted in ad delivery placement reports

JS Required-PDF:

Note: to get straight to the interesting part, read from the the bullet point number 10 in the summary in the comments.

  • Pro@programming.devOPEnglish
    4·
    6 hours ago
    Summary Part 1
    1. YouTube states “Only content meeting our monetization policies will be eligible to show ads.”
    2. Several advertisers reported to Adalytics that they were allegedly billed (and allegedly mostly not refunded) for video ads served on YouTube channels which were later removed by YouTube for violating YouTube’s Community Guidelines or YouTube’s Terms of Service. Some brands reported being billed thousands of dollars for hundreds of millions of ad impressions served against YouTube channels which YouTube allegedly deleted from its own platform for violations.
    3. When YouTube channels or videos are removed by YouTube for violations, Google appears to retroactively “redact” or “delete” data from advertisers’ ad delivery reports. Once YouTube removes a channel, the ad delivery reports are updated to say: “Channel no longer available”, such that brands cannot readily know what sorts of content their ads served against.
    4. According to various media buyers, YouTube’s own records show that the brands were billed for (and mostly not refunded) for ads served on channels were served on YouTube channels which were “terminated” “due to multiple or severe violations of”:
    • “YouTube’s policy prohibiting hate speech”
    • “YouTube’s policy on nudity or sexual content”
    • “YouTube’s policy prohibiting content designed to harass, bully or threaten.”
    • “YouTube’s policy on violence”
    • “YouTube’s policy prohibiting impersonation”
    1. In some cases, video ads appear to have been served against YouTube channels which were “terminated due to a legal complaint” or “removed due to a court order”. One of the channels which appears to have been removed was allegedly funded by an entity that - according to the US Department of Justice - was allegedly linked to a foreign intelligence information warfare and psyop operation. The channels’ operators stated they were “victims of this scheme”, knew “nothing about any of this fraudulent activity”, and “were “deceived and are victims” if the allegations are proven to be true.”
    2. In addition to retroactively redacting or deleting “offending” data from advertisers’ ad delivery reports without issuing full refunds, Google also appears to consistently withhold data about where significant portions of brands ads served. In some advertisers’ YouTube placement reports, between 10-40% of their channel-level or video-level ad delivery data is aggregated into a reporting category called: “Total: Other”. There appears to be no transparency or detail about where ads were served when the ads deliver against: “Total: Other”. It does not appear to be readily possible for a media buyer to know if the ads were served on Channels that were deleted for violations, low quality content, or otherwise. One brand reported that when they looked at “video-level” (rather channel-level) ad delivery reporting, YouTube had bucketed over 90% of their media spend into the “Total: Other” category, thus depriving the brand of transparency into where the majority of their ads served at a video-level.
    3. Google has previously stated it is committed to “at least 99% effective at ensuring brand safety of advertising placements on YouTube, in accordance with industry standards.” YouTube is Media Rating Council (MRC) accredited for “brand safety”, and works with “independent” third party verification vendors. Multiple advertisers reported that it is unclear to them whether the MRC or third party verification vendors have visibility into retroactively deleted YouTube channels or non-transparent “Total: Other” ad delivery as part of their brand safety assessments
    4. One small business (SMB) marketer allegedly spent over twelve months repeatedly asking - via email and in verbal meetings - why he was charged for ad delivery on YouTube, where over 50% of his ad spend was non-transparent in the “Total: Other” category. After 12+ months, YouTube reportedly agreed to provide him with a $50,000 custom credit in response to his repeated requests.
    5. In addition to serving adjacent to sexual content, hate speech, violence, and alleged foreign intelligence operations, significant portions of YouTube ads are served against content which was removed by YouTube due to “third-party claims of copyright infringement”.
    6. Content from all major film studios - Amazon/MGM, Paramount, Lionsgate, Disney, Universal Pictures, Warner Brothers, Sony - was found on third party YouTube channels (third party meaning the channels are not the official channels of these respective film studios). Content from streaming services such as Netflix, NBCUniversal Peacock, Disney+, and Apple TV+, was available for watching on third party YouTube channels. For example, the Netflix films “Extraction 2”, “Heart of Stone”, and “Atlas” could be watched in their entirety on multiple third party YouTube channels, where they received millions of views.
  • Pro@programming.devOPEnglish
    3·
    6 hours ago
    Summary Part 3
    1. In some cases, third-party YouTube creators upload “re-distributed” content, such as ESPN, CBS Sports, or Fox Sports college football game live streams or episodes of TV shows such as Family Guy. After ~12 hours, the creators edit the videos to cut out the “re-distributed” content and they edit the title, description, and meta-data of the videos to something unrelated. This appears to prevent brand advertisers from knowing against what sorts of content their ads were served on in their original form, and suggests that YouTube ad delivery placement reports may not accurately convey what sorts of content the ads were served against before the videos were retro-actively edited and re-named.
    2. Disney, Lionsgate, Paramount, Universal/Focus Features, Bleecker Street, and streaming services like Disney+, Peacock, Sling TV, YouTube TV, and Hulu/FX, in their capacity as advertisers, have run ads against uploaded copies of their own intellectual property on third-party channels, thus potentially funding it.
    3. The presidential election campaigns of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, as well as major brands such Procter & Gamble, had ads served on videos that appear to belong to various professional film studios, such as “Deadpool & Wolverine”, whilst the film was being shown in movie cinemas in the summer of 2024.
    4. The list of brands whose ads were served on third-party, “re-distributed” content YouTube channels which were later deleted by YouTube (and thus, likely retroactively redacted from their ad delivery placement reports), includes: a. the New York Times, the presidential election campaigns of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, the House Majority PAC (a Democrat Super PAC), Procter & Gamble (P&G),Unilever, BMO Bank, Ben & Jerry’s, McDonald’s, US Bank, Crossmedia, Samsung, Disney+, FX networks, WarnerMedia (HBO Max), Mint Mobile, Focus Features (owned by NBCUniversal), Kellanova (Special K, Frosted Flakes), State Farm, Verizon, Visible (by Verizon), T-Mobile, Disney, Hulu, Mazda, the Wall Street Journal, Nissan, North Face, Paramount+, Health for California Insurance Center, A&E Television Networks (Lifetime), NBCUniversal Media (Peacock), Volvo cars, Lionsgate, Macy’s, Adobe, SlingTV, Hyundai, Genesis, AAA (American Automobile Association), Amazon, AMC Plus, Mindshare USA (part of GroupM/WPP), Peloton, Linkedin, TD Bank, Grammarly, General Mills, Ubisoft, Zaxby’s, Dentsu X, Dentsu Carat, OMD (part of Omnicom), Publicis Media, Alfa Romeo (part of Stellantis), Starcom Worldwide, Horizon Media, Canvas Worldwide, Safelite, Ricolino (owned by Mondelez), Save The Children, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Hasbro, Kinder (Ferrero), TruGreen, California Teachers Association, Frontier Internet, Ticketmaster, Meta (Facebook), Ray Ban, JetBlue, Quest Nutrition, Shopify, General Motors, Ruiz Foods, JPMorgan Chase, Currax Pharmaceuticals, TikTok, B&H PHoto & Video, Invesco, VaynerMedia, Kingsford, St. George’s University, Empower insurance, Ezcater, Philo, GolfNow, World Vision Fund, Discover Puerto Rico, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Jimmy Fund), Novo Nordisk, Ooni, Aquasana, Panasonic, Atlassian, Caterpillar, Fandango, Harbor Freight Tools, Castlery Furniture, Blue Diamond Hotels, and others. b. Zefr, which is a Partner of the YouTube Measurement Program, appears to have been observed transacting ads for Dexcom on a “re-distributed” video of Netflix’s “Squid Game 3” which was later removed. Channel Factory, which declares itself to be a Google Premier Partner, part of the YouTube Measurement Program, and is TAG “Certified for Brand Safety”, was observed transacting ads on behalf of brands such as:
    • General Mills on “re-distributed” YouTube videos of the movie “John Wick: Chapter 4” on a channel which was removed from YouTube,
    • Sephora and Quest Nutrition on “re-distributed” YouTube videos of the movie “Spider Man: Homecoming” on a channel which was removed from YouTube,
    • Tena (part of Essity) on “re-distributed” YouTube videos of the movie: “Deadpool & Wolverine” on a channel which was removed from YouTube “because it violated [YouTube’s] Community Guidelines” (archived here: https://www.loom.com/share/9fff55d650eb4fd68ae938fc19aa0299)
  • Pro@programming.devOPEnglish
    3·
    6 hours ago
    Summary Part 2
    1. Thousands of “re-distributed” YouTube videos - including live ESPN or CBS sports games, full films that were still in theatrical release at movie theaters, TV shows, and exclusive streaming content from - were found on third party YouTube channels, largely via the YouTube recommendation algorithm. These videos appear to have likely collectively generated over a billion views and likely several billions of ad impressions.
    2. The YouTube recommendation algorithm itself appears to amplify and make easily discoverable “re-distributed” content with as little as one click/view of similar uploads. Beyond just “hosting” the “re-distributed” content, YouTube’s recommendation algorithm may actively make it easier for consumers to find and view “re-distributed” content, and appears to surface more and more “re-distributed” content to users even with relatively little browsing history. There are entire Reddit forum discussions where consumers discuss observing this phenomenon.
    3. User comments posted on YouTube and Reddit suggest that some consumers avoid paying for cinema tickets, Netflix or other streaming subscriptions, or film rentals because the consumers are able to watch copyrighted media content for free on YouTube.
    4. This may potentially affect film studios, TV show producers, and live sports broadcasters by potentially increasing YouTube’s viewership ratings and time spent numbers, while potentially decreasing the viewership ratings for the license rights owners and subscribers for competitive streaming services. This could theoretically impact the rightful license right owners ability to attract large advertising budgets and subscribers.
    5. Movies that were in theatrical release at cinema - such as “Deadpool & Wolverine” in the summer of 2024 - were observed being uploaded and removed multiple times on YouTube, and were observed being promoted on the YouTube.com Homepage. This can impact consumers’ propensity to pay to view the movies in cinemas, as was noted by many users in the comments.
    6. Live sports events - such as Major League Baseball (MLB) or NCAA college football games broadcast by ESPN or CBS Sports - were live streamed entirely on various third party YouTube channels. The videos and streams are largely removed after the fact, either by voluntary self-deletion by the creators or by YouTube. Some of these third party streams collectively generate millions of views.
    7. TV and streaming shows, such as content of Netflix’s “Squid Game”, NBCUniversal Peacock’s Love Island, Family Guy, Warner Brothers’ Big Bang Theory, Loki, and American Dad, were observed on third party channels on YouTube.
    8. Content starring many famous Hollywood actors were ‘re-distributed’ on third party YouTube channels. It is unclear whether these actors receive compensation - such as royalties - when ads are viewed on this content via third party, ‘re-distributing’ YouTube channels. The list of Hollywood actors whose videos were found on “re-distributing”, third party YouTube channels includes: Jason Statham, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Daniel Craig, Chris Hemsworth, Dwayne Johnson, Keanu Reeves, Scarlett Johansson, Mark Ruffalo, Samuel L. Jackson, Tom Hiddleston, Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Will Smith, Ryan Reynolds, Hugh Jackman, Gal Gadot, Laurence Fishburne, Chris Pratt, Vin Diesel, Bruce Willis, Benedict Cumberbatch, and many others.
    9. This research found various channel owners were continuously removing and re-uploading “re-distributed” content each day, Some YouTube channels appear to be able to serve many videos of “re-distributed” content, and evade being banned by continuously self-removing their own “re-distributed” content each day, in a daily round-robin cycle of uploading “re-distributed” content and then removing the content later in the day. It is unclear if this is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the YouTube Content ID detection algorithm.
    10. Some YouTube channel creators - including YouTubed-”verified” creators and creators who appear to have received a “YouTube Creator Award” for having hundreds of thousands or millions of subscribers or views - were seen uploading “re-distributed” Disney movies, Family Guys episodes or live videos from ESPN, Fox Sports, or CBS Sports college football games. The creators often self-delete or edit these videos after the livestreams end. These creators appear to have amassed millions of views via these tactics.