Actionability of web site terms of service
<p>How actionable is a violation of a website term of service, like for example, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms" rel="nofollow noreferrer">YouTube's clause 4C</a> which reads:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>You agree not to access Content through any technology or means other
  than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable
  Player, or other explicitly authorized means YouTube may designate.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In this clause YouTube is announcing that their "terms of service" require that a viewer only watch YouTube videos through the YouTube player and not through any other player that they might have.</p>

<p>Even aside from the issue of whether I have "agreed" implicitly to this, what possible claim could YouTube make in a court of law against a web user who viewed their videos using a non-YouTube viewer? The legal "agreement" which I never agreed to, does not even specify remedies. How would the remedy even be determined? YouTube decides, oh hey, we decided the remedy is that you owe us $100,000,000 because you watched one of videos on a non-standard viewer?</p>

<p>Have such TOS pronouncements ever been tested in a real court of law?</p>

<p>Assuming that the Terms of Service constitute a contract (most do, see <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/13549/are-terms-of-service-legal-contracts/13571#13571">Are terms of service legal contracts?</a>) then they are binding on both the website owner and the user.</p>

<p>If you violate the terms then YouTube's primary response is to cancel the contract i.e. suspend your account and refuse to provide videos to you. That said, if YouTube could demonstrate that your breach of the terms caused them damage (including pure economic loss like loss of profit) then they could sue for damages - this does, however, seem unlikely.</p>

contract-law internet tort