TY - JOUR
T1 - Indie law for YouTubers
T2 - YouTube and the legality of demonetisation
AU - Srivastava, Neerav
N1 - Funding Information:
I am grateful to Associate Professor Normann Witzleb, my PhD supervisor at the Faculty of Law, Monash University for his analytical and thoughtful guidance; to Professor Megan Richardson at the Faculty of Law, University of Melbourne for her valuable comments; to the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and thorough comments to the student editors Brian Lian and Bella Mickan for being so professional, thorough and passionate; and to Mr Bruno Tomat for his guidance on the practicalities of YouTube.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, University of Adelaide. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - YouTube has a de facto monopoly on over 95% of global public video communications. The YouTube business model is built on advertising revenue generated from content provided by uploaders, known as YouTubers — the vast majority of whom are small-timers. Advertising revenue is then split between the YouTuber (55%) and YouTube (45%). When a YouTuber does not meet the minimum threshold hours, or content is deemed by YouTube as inappropriate, a YouTuber cannot monetise that content. This is known as demonetisation. Many YouTubers complain they have been wrongly demonetised. This article argues, first, that despite foreign exclusive jurisdiction and choice of law clauses, an Australian court can hear a claim by Australian YouTubers under the Australian Consumer Law (‘ACL’). Second, this article suggests that wrongful demonetisation may breach the consumer guarantees under the ACL, and third, that not providing reasons when a YouTuber is demonetised is unconscionable. Finally, this article concludes by arguing that clauses that allow YouTube to unilaterally vary its terms, and the monetisation policy, are unfair terms under the ACL.
AB - YouTube has a de facto monopoly on over 95% of global public video communications. The YouTube business model is built on advertising revenue generated from content provided by uploaders, known as YouTubers — the vast majority of whom are small-timers. Advertising revenue is then split between the YouTuber (55%) and YouTube (45%). When a YouTuber does not meet the minimum threshold hours, or content is deemed by YouTube as inappropriate, a YouTuber cannot monetise that content. This is known as demonetisation. Many YouTubers complain they have been wrongly demonetised. This article argues, first, that despite foreign exclusive jurisdiction and choice of law clauses, an Australian court can hear a claim by Australian YouTubers under the Australian Consumer Law (‘ACL’). Second, this article suggests that wrongful demonetisation may breach the consumer guarantees under the ACL, and third, that not providing reasons when a YouTuber is demonetised is unconscionable. Finally, this article concludes by arguing that clauses that allow YouTube to unilaterally vary its terms, and the monetisation policy, are unfair terms under the ACL.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85125397406&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85125397406
SN - 0065-1915
VL - 42
SP - 503
EP - 550
JO - Adelaide Law Review
JF - Adelaide Law Review
IS - 2
ER -