We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
INDIE LAW FOR YOUTUBERS: YOUTUBE AND THE LEGALITY OF DEMONETISATION.
- Authors
Srivastava, Neerav
- Abstract
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.
- Subjects
YOUTUBE (Web resource); ADVERTISING revenue; MONETIZATION; CONFLICT of laws; CONSUMER law; YOUTUBE LLC
- Publication
Adelaide Law Review, 2021, Vol 42, Issue 2, p503
- ISSN
0065-1915
- Publication type
Article