Absolute Truth: Why YouTube Ads Must Be Vetted Like TV to Stop Scams Now

The rise of YouTube has sparked fresh debate over how online ads are regulated compared to their TV counterparts. As YouTube overtakes ITV as the UK’s second most-watched media service (just behind the BBC), concerns about scam ads, diet pill promotions, and deepfakes are swirling. Liberal Democrats are now pushing for stronger, TV-like vetting for YouTube advertising, but is this the prescription the digital advertising ecosystem needs? Let’s triage the facts and get to the heart of the matter.

What Is It? Who Is It For?

Liberal Democrats in the UK are calling for all YouTube ads to be subject to the same pre-approval screening as TV and radio spots. Currently, ads on traditional broadcast media must pass muster with watchdogs like Clearcast and Radio Central. In contrast, YouTube operates with a self-regulation, post-hoc removal system, which critics say lets scam and misleading ads “proliferate” before any slap on the wrist arrives. The proposal is aimed at consumer protection, targeting online users (including vulnerable demographics) who increasingly watch content via YouTube rather than mainstream TV.

Design and Experience

From the viewer’s angle, the difference is palpable: channel-surf on your decrepit telly and you can hope your eyes are spared a crypto scam featuring a deep-faked King Charles. Scroll YouTube, however, and a grab bag of under-vetted ads—ranging from bogus celebrity endorsements to possibly dodgy cryptocurrency pitches—can ambush you before anyone gets a chance to rule them out of order.

Liberal Democrats rightly point out that this “two-tier system” lets digital giants play judge, jury, and ambulance driver for their own traffic accidents. There’s also the consumer experience of “reporting” scammy ads with no guarantee of rapid resolution—compared to the relatively quiet confidence that accredited agencies have put TV/radio spots through their paces first. If you’re the gambling type, you’ll love watching YouTube ads; for the rest, it’s a slot machine of trust.

Quality, Performance, and Reliability

Google claims to have removed over 411.7 million UK ads and yanked 1.1 million ad accounts in 2024. The article shows scammers outpacing these moves, with 1,691 scam ad reports reaching the ASA this year alone—and only 177 escalated to platforms. The pace of enforcement versus scam generation (especially deepfakes and bogus public-figure endorsements) seems to lag behind what viewers expect from reputable broadcasters. When quality control is reactive, not proactive, reliability suffers.

The Gaps in YouTube’s Ad Vetting

• No Automatic Pre-Vetting: Unlike TV/radio ads, YouTube’s system doesn’t screen content for compliance before publication.
• Gray Area for Crypto/Drugs/Celebrity Usage: Promotion is possible so long as regional laws are observed—even if these sometimes lack teeth or clear definitions.
• User Reporting Feature: YouTube allows users to flag suspect ads, but the visibility and speed of follow-up remain unclear.
• Incomplete ASA Powers: The ASA, tasked with monitoring ads and responding to complaints, can report to Ofcom under the Online Safety Act, but pre-emptive enforcement is limited digitally.

A user-focused system would combine both upfront screening and fast remedial action—something YouTube is currently missing.

Ethics, Privacy, and Monetization Concerns

The ethics of letting YouTube “mark its own homework” (as Liberal Democrats put it) are debatable, particularly when ordinary users shoulder the burden of policing content through after-the-fact reporting. Aggressive scam advertisers exploit regulatory delay, while YouTube’s refusal to be classed as a “broadcaster” looks more like self-preservation than ethical stewardship. The gap leaves fertile ground for shady monetization.

Accessibility and Impact on Vulnerable Users

The scam ad menace disproportionately hurts less tech-savvy users and vulnerable groups, who may not recognize the potential for deception quickly. Relying on user reporting shifts responsibility away from those with the greatest resources to stem the problem—namely, the platform itself.

The Big Caveats

There is no magic wand: implementing TV-style pre-vetting for the sheer volume of digital ads would be a logistical marathon for both regulators and platforms. The tradeoff is between scalability and safety. However, as YouTube becomes a media juggernaut, pretending it’s just another “website” becomes less credible.

“Regulations need to catch up with the reality of how people are watching content and unscrupulous advertisers must not be allowed to use loopholes to exploit people.”

Max Wilkinson, Liberal Democrat MP

Verdict: A Cautious Recommend

The Liberal Democrat proposal is well-intentioned and hits a critical nerve: scam ads, deepfakes, and misleading endorsements should not be routine hazards for online viewers. YouTube’s status as “not a broadcaster” is increasingly an outdated fiction given its scale and influence.

However, translating decades-old TV vetting protocols to the internet’s pace and volume won’t be quick or easy—and risks drawing a new regulatory sledgehammer without fitting the fluidity of digital media. (Imagine vetting every pre-roll, on-demand clip, and targeted spot ahead of time at scale!) The nuanced middle-ground is for Ofcom’s ongoing consultation to produce a scalable fraudulent advertising code of practice—one with actual teeth, not just a stern warning.

The call is correct, but the implementation details will decide whether it’s a life-saver or just another band-aid.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is entirely my opinion.

Source: Call to vet YouTube ads like regular TV to stop scams