14

At a very simple ethical level there is a clear problem with using an adblocker. There is, after all, a very clear understanding that ad providers are paying them for your access to the content. Put differently: You pay for the content by watching those ads (of which selling your privacy is often, though not always, a part). Unethical however hardly means directly unlawful/illegal, so I have often wondered about the legal mirror of those ethical rules.

Our hypothetical case

So, some ToS's explicitly have statements like

You agree not to alter or modify any part of the Service.

taken from the YouTube ToS. So let's assume our theoretical service has those as well as possibly even explicitly addressing adblockers. Note that I am not saying that the quoted statement is the best legal way of putting this, it's purely an example.

Now, let's say that a user uses this service for a year whilst an adblocker is running. Let's also say that the user has signed up for the service and explicitly consented the Terms of Service. Is there any way that the service could lawfully get this user to pay up for his usage of the service (the loss of income)? Or if not, is there any form of 'punishment' the user could face? (Beyond being blocked from the service, but he could also be blocked from the service even if he didn't use an adblocker if the service felt like it) And if yes, does it require such an explicit segment in the ToS or is this already a natural given?

PS. I have selected the as the main focus of the question, simply because it's most likely to get a quality answer, however if you also know how the same would work out in a western european country I would love it if an answer could include a very short rundown of that as well.

Community
  • 1
David Mulder
  • 1,245
  • 1
  • 8
  • 18

3 Answers3

9

This is a complicated question because adblockers have grown increasingly complex in recent years. What it means to "block ads" from both a legal and technical perspective is more complex than it was just a few years ago.

First the broad strokes: It's not illegal to block ads.

Multiple court cases have defended users' rights to control the information that enters their computers / devices. You have the legal right to view or not view whatever you like.

But... that doesn't mean your use of an adblocker isn't in violation of US law.

The crucial issue with legality when it comes to adblockers is less about blocking ads, and more about circumventing a websites measures to defeat adblockers.

The US DMCA has strict wording regarding 'circumvention of access controls'. If a website has taken active measures to prevent access by adblocking users, and your adblocker circumvents those measures -- this is very likely a violation of the DMCA. The important point here is that the legal transgression isn't blocking ads. It's the circumvention of access controls which in attempt to limit access to adblock users.

There's a good write-up on this topic here:

https://blockadblock.com/adblocking/adblockers-dont-break-the-law-except-when-they-do/

Additionally, a website's "Terms of Use" agreement may address adblocking. As we all know, website ToU's are not always legally binding on the site visitor. But sometimes they are.

There's a good exploration of how to implement a ToU that addresses adblocking here:

http://blockadblock.com/adblocking/addressing-adblocking-terms-use-agreement/

Bangkokian
  • 191
  • 1
  • 2
5

Specifically regarding Youtube, it would appear that it would be legal to use an adblocker, regardless whether it technically violates the ToS or not, as YouTube is browsable without any requirement of having to accept the ToS. If a user has not accepted the ToS, all videos are still viewable both on the main page and from links.

Clickwraps (as litigated in Feldman v Google) were held to be legally enforcable means of a contract, if the contract is not judged to be unconscionable, and is judged to be enforceable.

However, since Youtube only displays their TOS in a link in small print near the bottom of the page, which is not reachable unless you scroll all the way to the bottom past the videos, it would clearly appear that the ToS of Youtube is not a clickwrap, but instead a browsewrap. This has been litigated in Specht v Netscape

Because we conclude that the Netscape webpage did not provide reasonable notice of the existence of SmartDownload’s license terms, it is irrelevant to our decision whether plaintiff Fagan obtained SmartDownload from that webpage, as defendants contend, or from a shareware website that provided less or no notice of that program’s license terms, as Fagan maintains. In either case, Fagan could not be bound by the SmartDownload license agreement.

Since Youtube does not clearly provide reasonable notice of the ToS, it is highly likely that any legal challenges on violations of the Youtube ToS would be unsuccessful.

March Ho
  • 779
  • 7
  • 18
5

Is adBlocker modifying the service? AdBlocker is a browser modification that tell the browser not to display this service or load this service. Google delivers the content, then your browser is in charge of displaying the content.

Many Web browsers don't display ad's without the aid of addOns like AdBlock.

  • Web Browsers like Lynx don't display ad's because they are text only.
  • Turning off images or JavaScript in any browser.
  • Browsing via accessibility software like a screen reader.
Jdahern
  • 1,409
  • 9
  • 15