How To Guys

Youtube channel TERMINATED 152k Subscribers and 13Years of work is gone YT Appeal rejected in seconds still working everyday to reinstate my channel

[How To Guys @dsdn13n]

After 13 years, @YouTube terminated @HowToGuys for “spam.” No warning, no strike. Appeal rejected in minutes.

152K subscribers, thousands of videos,live, and our livelihood gone overnight. Our video was featured on Discovery Tv
@TeamYouTube, please give us ONE human review. ❤️

[Richard rabbit @Richardrabdltr]

Hey @TeamYouTube @YouTube my channel has been terminated that's wasn't even following our policy so can you help me fixed my channel back

[om don @omdonyoutuber]

My channel got removed for "spam,Deceptive Activity" and YouTube won't even tell me what videos I need to take down to avoid it. I've already reached out to support and still haven't heard back, it's been 3 days so far. 🫩
@TeamYouTube
@YouTube
please look at my appeal 😕

[RebornDiaries @AC15912733]

My lawyers sent YouTube a formal demand letter weeks ago.
They followed it with four reminders.
A few days ago they sent a final letter giving YouTube 14 days to reinstate monetization — or we will escalate it.
Let that sink in.
Zero strikes.
Zero warnings.
Zero real answers.
Just a formal legal demand, four reminders, and a final 14-day deadline — all met with silence and a copy-paste reply. (Below is a copy of one of their templated replies. It is generic as my demonetization was accused of misleading family content and youtubes legal team reply goes on about copyright issues)
I spent years building Reborn Diaries to 140,000 subscribers and over 64 million views. YouTube approved the channel for the Partner Program, then suspended monetization, withheld my earnings, and left me without that income.
I have asked for one thing:
A genuine human review of the actual evidence.
@TeamYouTube, this is beyond ridiculous.
You still have a short window to look at what happened and resolve this before it ends up in court.
Please do the right thing.

[lemino @leminoob]

A CMS was never a magical shield against demonetization. It doesn't exempt you from youtube s policies. It's just an extra layer of support and security, not a guarantee that your channel is safe.

I had the exact same issue with one of my other channels last week (not AI stories tho). Despite being with a "well known" CMS, the channel got demonetized. (I appealed and got monetization back.)

I've worked with 3–4 CMSs so far, and honestly, most of them are useless and don't make much of a difference, especially when you're already making safe, low-risk content. The main reason I use a CMS is for the available payment methods.

The only one I've had an exceptional experience with is @wannercashcow, ngl. I'm not his student, and this isn't a promotion. His team actually takes care of my channels, keeps me updated on youtube policies and changes, and warns me about potential issues.

I've been with them for over 6 months and haven't had a single issue.

A CMS is never a magical miracle, if you're making risky content or pumping out AI stories on scale, just take that bag and run

[pumaa @pumaa_yt]

So YouTube can demonetise you for having a "related channel" with monetization problems (even if you don't)

Then they can just go on not telling you what the related channel is due to "privacy and security reasons"

The channel is MINE and so is the RELATED CHANNEL with the problem? Someone explain how this makes any sense

@TeamYouTube I demand information on atleast what the related channel is and how its connected to me? How am I supposed to fix an issue with a problem I can't even identify?

I only get AI, base level answers that give me absolutely 0 information

[Blain Fernandes @blain_fury]

Youtube is coming after CMS channels.
Managed O&O CMS will no more protect you.
Just got hit with GENERIC & REPETITIVE CONTENT.
Even the Partner Manager Could not get the channel Back.
20K USD gone + CMS Penalty for Demonetization.

I used to Post ultra long form History documentaries with complete automation system , 3- 4 videos a day on CMS for 6 Months with no issues at all.

Now they decide to come after CMS channels which used to bypass AI flags.

[Zorro @wayofzorro]

This a YouTube channel was wrongfully terminated from YouTube but after going viral, YouTube had no choice but to put the channel back on the platform.

I guarantee there are a ton of creators who don’t get the same response.

Good for him though 🙏

[How To Guys @dsdn13n]

Our 13+ year-old @YouTube channel, How To Guys, is terminated,2nd appeal Denied (dm say final decision) but @TeamYouTube is looking into it(email say)🙏 We appreciate their attention!

Hope YouTube considers human review ,btw did you noticed something's wierd in these responses??

[How To Guys @dsdn13n]

@abhishekm902 @TeamYouTube Same here

[abhishek @abhishekm902]

Why do I keep receiving the exact same response from
@TeamYouTube
I have explained everything to you in full detail, yet I continue to get the same reply. I am requesting a manual review I have not violated any guidelines. Please, I seek justice. youtube made me cry today 😭 help

[andi D. @dauerblog]

DECISION under art. 21 of the Digital Services Act ========================================= **Case number:** 677e1523e86b4d538824 **Google Case ID:** 8-9940000041762 **Date of the decision:** 11/09/2026 **Jurisdiction:** Germany **Date:** 03/08/2026 ### PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE **User:** andidauerblog **Platform:** YouTube **Company name:** Google Ireland Limited **Registered address:** Gordon House, Barrow Street, Dublin 4, D04 E5W5, Ireland ### I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ### I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. On 03/08/2026 (“**User**”) lodged a complaint against **Google Ireland Limited (“Google”)** via ADR Center Case Management System ([https://t.co/H4dq6NF2l1](https://t.co/H4dq6NF2l1)). :customField[caseOverview] 2. :customField[reportedIssue] 3. Pursuant to Article 21 of the DSA the User seeks for the ADR Center to administer its process in accordance with its Out-of-Court Dispute Resolution Rules for Online Platform Providers and Service Recipients, as outlined in Article 21 of the Digital Services Act - Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, effective on the date of filing the Complaint. Upon receiving the Complaint, the ADR Center verified its admissibility and forwarded it to Google for a reasoned response. Google registered the complaint under its case No. 8-9940000041762 and submitted a reply. In its response, Google maintained its decision to terminate the User's channel, asserting that the channel repeatedly violated its Nudity and Sexual Content policy and that no error occurred in its prior enforcement action. 4. The Complainant submitted additional evidence, including support chat transcripts and email records, indicating that platform support had previously advised that placing content in the members area would not result in strikes, and noting that the channel was terminated without reaching three strikes. The ADR Center proceeded to render its decision based on the complete record available. ### II. LEGAL ANALYSIS 1. **Jurisdiction and Scope of the Digital Services Act (DSA):** 1. ADR Center is [a certified out-of-court dispute-settlement body (ODS)](https://t.co/CuxIb5ty7y) pursuant to Decision 501/CONS/24 issued on 18 December 2024 by AGCOM (Italian Communications Authority) and, by Decision 107/25/CONS of 30 April 2025, may operate in total in 16 EU official languages, i.e.: in English, Italian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak and Spanish. 2. Under Article 21 DSA, an ODS may handle **only disputes between users and “online platforms”** concerning: 1. Illegal Content or incompatibility with Provider’s Terms and Conditions; 2. Removing or disabling access to information; 3. Suspension or termination of user accounts or service provision; 4. Suspension, termination, or limitation of the ability to monetize information; and 5. Any other actions taken by online platform providers that affect users' content or accounts. 3. Under Article 21 DSA, users whose content has been blocked or removed or whose account has been suspended by a platform are entitled to select a certified out-of-court dispute settlement body to resolve their disputes with the service provider. The goal of this provision is to promote fairness and transparency for users of online intermediation services by ensuring that there is an easily accessible, transparent and efficient manner for out-of-court redress in the sphere of internet intermediary services. By providing for such an out-of-court dispute settlement mechanism uploaders may select an appropriate out-of-court settlement body to refer their dispute when their content is blocked or removed by the platform operator, or when their account or the provision of the service is suspended or terminated. 4. The application of DSA therefore primarily depends on whether the service provider, against whom the complaint is filed, qualifies as an online platform and whether the dispute in question falls under the scope of art. 20, para. 1 of the DSA, which provides Users with the right to appeal: *decision taken by the provider of the online platform ……………………… on the grounds that the information provided by the recipients constitutes illegal content or is incompatible with its terms and conditions:* *(a) decisions whether or not to remove or disable access to or restrict visibility of the information;* *(b) decisions whether or not to suspend or terminate the provision of the service, in whole or in part, to the recipients;* *(c) decisions whether or not to suspend or terminate the recipients’ account;* *(d) decisions whether or not to suspend, terminate or otherwise restrict the ability to monetise information provided by the recipients.* 5. YouTube is an online platform because it stores and disseminates user-generated content at users’ request, in particular by hosting and making available videos, live streams, comments, channel pages, and related profile information to the public or specific audiences depending on users’ settings. This aligns with the DSA’s definition of an online platform, as YouTube’s primary function is to facilitate the exchange and publication of information at the request of its users. YouTube’s decision to disable or restrict access to a user’s channel or content squarely triggers Article 20(1)(b): “decisions whether or not to suspend or terminate the provision of the service, in whole or in part, to the recipients.” Therefore, the case at **hand is admissible as it concerns precisely a decision to take down or render inaccessible user-provided audiovisual content and related information through which dissemination to the public is made—a case that falls within the scope of review due under Article 21 DSA.** 6. Therefore, an assessment of the merits of the case should be carried out to determine whether Google’s actions in this case comply with the DSA. 2. **Google’s actions in the case at hand constitute a breach under DSA**: 1. YouTube’s **Nudity and Sexual Content** policy prohibits sexually explicit content intended for sexual gratification. However, YouTube's guidelines explicitly provide exceptions for content with educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic (EDSA) context. In enforcing its guidelines, YouTube must also follow transparent procedural rules regarding strike issuance and channel termination. 2. In the present case, Google maintained that the User's channel was terminated due to repeated violations of its Nudity and Sexual Content policy. However, the record demonstrates that the User's channel ("andi D.") functions as a documentary archive of historical 1980s/90s sports footage accompanied by original music. The content serves a clear documentary function falling within the EDSA exceptions recognised in Google's policy. Furthermore, support correspondence (Case 9-6666000040919) confirmed that placing the video in the members-only section was permissible and would not yield a strike. Relying on this advice, the User moved the video, yet Strike 2 was issued and the channel was subsequently terminated without reaching the required three strikes under YouTube's standard enforcement policy. 3. Google failed to provide specific evidence or explanations showing how the historical sports footage constituted sexually explicit content for sexual gratification, or why the documentary exception did not apply. Under Articles 17 and 20 DSA, platforms must handle complaints diligently, objectively, and non-arbitrarily. Dismissing appeals with generic automated responses without evaluating EDSA context or past support guidance violates these procedural requirements. 3. **Proportionality and fundamental rights**: 1. The DSA requires any restriction to be necessary and proportionate in light of the nature and gravity of the alleged breach, taking into account users' fundamental right to freedom of expression and information (Art. 11 EU Charter). Permanently deleting a 13-year-old channel with over 630 videos based on ambiguous enforcement, despite explicit prior assurances from support, is manifestly disproportionate. A proportionate measure would have involved individual content review considering EDSA context or targeted restrictions rather than complete account deletion. Consequently, Google's decision to terminate the channel must be reverted, and the channel fully reinstated. ### **

III. DECISION ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE**
Based on the analysis above, it is concluded that the complaint of Andreas Dauer against **Google Ireland Limited** with reference to the User's YouTube channel should be **upheld** under ADR Center ODS rules. Therefore, **it is hereby decided that Google Ireland Limited should reinstate the User' s Google YouTube account** andidauerblog. ### **

IV. COST AWARD**
Pursuant to Article 21(5) DSA and Article 3.3 of the ADR Center ODS Schedule of Fees (costs for case resolution applicable for complaints filed in after 1st September 2025), all costs associated with the current proceedings in the amount of 500 EUR shall be covered by Google **This decision is non-binding on the parties under Article 21(2) of the Digital Services Act. It cannot be appealed and does not affect either party's right to bring the matter before a competent court in accordance with applicable law.
However, failure to comply with this decision may be reported to the relevant authorities - namely, to the Digital Services Coordinator in the User's place of residence.** *This decision is made available on ADR Center Case Management System at* [https://t.co/H4dq6NF2l1](https://t.co/H4dq6NF2l1), *which is accessible to both parties and of which the latter has been notified by email.*

[Sinewy @mrs4vager]

My 560K+ YouTube channel was terminated, and I still haven’t received a human reviewer for my channel . My appeal was rejected, my emails got me nowhere, and even @TeamYouTube keeps repeating the same responses without helping.

[How To Guys @dsdn13n]

@ky4eRGaming @YouTube @TeamYouTube Exactly true!

[How To Guys @dsdn13n]

Our 13+ year-old @YouTube channel How To Guys, is terminated, & @TeamYouTube is looking into it🙏Thanks!

Hope YouTube considers human review before termination and warnings before strikes escalate to Termination, giving all creators a fair chance to correct and follow policies❤️

[Tales Of Theo 🔥🎒【StarlightRevo】 @TalesOfTheoVT]

If you had your YouTube channel WRONGFULLY terminated, please comment below with:

1. Your YouTube account profile picture
2. What content you create
3. The reason YouTube gave you for your channel termination, and when you received your termination email

@TeamYouTube, fix this!

[Andrew-McCafferty @real_mccafferty]

I've Got Over 5,000,000 Subscribers Unfairly Terminated by @YouTube!

Everything started with the 4.63M sub channel. After that everything went downhill. YT refuses to give them back and I need YOUR HELP! 🫵
I was only 14 when all this started. Its so unfair icl.
@TeamYouTube

[Dexerto @Dexerto]

YouTube has terminated a creator's channel for ban evasion, after a channel that re-uploaded their video was banned for stealing content

Pokémon creator 'SplashPlate' says the platform's moderation has mistaken their original upload for a repost of the delete channel's content

[Oleksandr Chase Car @OlekChaseCar]

🚨 In the first 6 months of 2025, YouTube's AI system terminated 5,003,437 YouTube channels.

That means:
➡️ 27,643 terminated channels every single day.
➡️ 1,151 terminated channels every single hour.
➡️ 19 channels banned for life every single minute.

And since YouTube's automation system typically terminates even MORE channels in the second half of the year, you can likely double those numbers right now.

At this very moment, by the time you finish reading this tweet, YouTube's AI will terminate another 100 channels, give or take.

81.8% of those bans were for “Spam, deceptive practices & scams” - a category handled almost entirely by the AI termination system.

The appeal is also handled by the same AI-bot that terminated the channel, often rejecting it within minutes.

Here's the reality:

→AI-bot terminates you (we've seen in recent weeks how many of those terminations appeared to be mistakes!)
→ You appeal.
→ The same AI-bot reviews it.
→ AI-bot confirms its own decision almost instantly.
→ Your YouTube career ends for life.

No human decision. No context. No second opinion.

If the AI makes a mistake, a creator’s entire career can disappear without any human review at all.

Let's think about it for a moment - this isn't just "policy enforcement". It's real people losing their livelihoods, years of work, their audience, their identity - with absolutely zero human accountability.

When someone's career and livelihood is decided to be erased (deservedly or undeservedly), a human decision should be involved. Period.

Once the AI termination process of your channel is completed, getting some details, answers, or a fair evaluation of your case is almost impossible.

And if you decide to fight the termination, you might go the legal path like I did, which took me almost a year. But even after winning the legal case, getting YouTube to acknowledge the formal legal decision is another quest which I still can't solve, and my channel still remains terminated. But let's keep my story for another tweet.

If you (or someone you know) were affected by this AI termination wave, reply below and share your story so more creators can see it.

RT this tweet + tag @ TeamYouTube to demand a human review for life-changing decisions. Because for us creators, those decisions are life-changing indeed.
#YouTubeAIWrongedCreators

[Andrew-McCafferty @real_mccafferty]

Looks like @TeamYouTube is STILL NOT responding.

They TERMINATED my 4.63M subscriber channel without any prior warnings or strikes. I genuinely can’t believe that a stupid joke I made when I was 14 led to losing my entire brand.

​Total lost across all channels: Over 5.2M subscribers.

​I didn't use ANY AI content, nor was I doing anything scammy. What happened was a fake MCN pretending to be IShowSpeed’s network scammed me. I barely got out of that situation, you won't believe this- but out of pure revenge, they mass-reported one of my old Shorts featuring an edgy joke.

​I was 14 at the time and didn't know better. Within 24 hours, my main channel was gone. I was banned for "nudity and sexual content."

​To clarify what the video actually was: it was a standard Geometry Dash Short with a hand cam. One text pop-up said "getting hard" while my hand was moving up and down—literally just trying to simulate fast mouse clicking. I genuinely did not realize how it looked while editing. Yes, the text was ragebait, but losing an entire 4.63M subscriber channel WITHOUT any warnings or strikes?

​@TeamYouTube put me in pure panic and tears. I couldn't even go to school that day because of how traumatic it was. A 14-year-old losing 4–5 years of work is insane. YouTube showed zero remorse.

​Rebuilding from Scratch:
After the termination, YT suspended my ability to order play buttons, but still allowed me to create channels. So, I picked myself back up and scaled a brand new channel to 1M subscribers in ONE MONTH. Later, it hit 2M+ subscribers (it's still public right now: @ StaxOfficials).

​I kept scaling more channels:
• 521K subs: @ dashtimeGD
• 290K subs: @ stacksoriginals

​The Unfair Terminations Continued:
When I tried scaling further, two smaller channels (around 10K subs each) got terminated for "spam and deceptive practices." All I did was re-upload a video ONCE and ask people to subscribe in the video. Getting wiped out again without warnings over minor mistakes felt completely uncalled for. Because of these small bans, my play button privileges kept getting revoked.

​Desperate for a clean slate, I created a brand new email account and built a channel to 500K subscribers in 3 months. I was finally able to order a play button, but YouTube banned that channel too for "Circumvention."

​I wasn't trying to bypass restrictions—I just saw the "order" button and was thrilled. It was YouTube's own system that allowed it despite uploading the same content style from the same IP, Chrome account, etc.

​Where I Stand Now:
Over 5.2M subscribers wiped out. I am turning 16 soon and I am still deeply affected by this. I struggle with depression and constant overthinking over how everything was handled.

​I dedicated my youth to making content people enjoyed and succeeding on this platform. I can't wrap my head around why YouTube protects predatory fake MCNs while punishing a 14–15-year-old creator this harshly.

​I’m still hoping someone at YouTube will finally look into this and spare my work. Thank you to everyone who took the time to read this. Have a great day. ❤️
#YouTube #TeamYouTube #terminated

[How To Guys @dsdn13n]

@YouTube @TeamYouTube I hope its actual human review, gem should not mean their gemini AI !@TeamYouTube