Gun control advocates appear to have succeeded in pushing YouTube to change its policies to restrict firearm-related content and tighten its rules governing manufacturer-supported videos. Is it just a coincidence? The implications extend beyond whether “GunTubers” can publish a product review. They reach the increasingly consequential question of when independent firearm coverage becomes corporate advertising.
A “report” published Sept. 16, titled ‘Loaded Content: How the firearms industry supports “guntubers” who endanger public safety,’ from The Smoking Gun, a not-so-independent “newsroom arm” of the Michael Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, portrays firearm-focused YouTube creators as an “industry-funded marketing network” and calls for tighter enforcement of the platform’s firearm-content rules. At the very same moment, YouTube updated its branded-content policy to prohibit content featuring firearms or ammunition when a creator receives something of value from a brand partner.
The timing is striking. The report acknowledges that YouTube changed its policy while the report was being written. Whether Everytown influenced that decision is unknown at this time. Any effort to suppress First Amendment speech, especially pertaining to Second Amendment-protected activities, should trouble all freedom-loving Americans. What is clear, however, is that the new restriction targets the manufacturers’ relationships on which the report builds much of its case against “GunTubers.”
And this move comes just as antigun groups — aided by big law firms — are using the court system to demand information from pro-gun content creators about their relationships with manufacturers. Those requests seek information about the relationships between “GunTubers” and manufacturers in an effort to establish a convoluted basis for legal liability rooted in “marketing” and “advertising” claims for the third-party, criminal misuse of lawful products.
Product Access is Not Editorial Control
The report suggests some sort of nefarious link between sponsorships, products supplied for review and creator partnerships as evidence of an industry-directed marketing operation. Yet those arrangements are not interchangeable and treating them as such ignores how independent product coverage works.
A creator may purchase a firearm, borrow one for testing, receive a sample or enter a paid sponsorship agreement. Each arrangement raises different questions about disclosure and editorial independence. Providing access to a product does not establish that its manufacturer dictated the review. And in reality, plenty of product reviews aren’t necessarily positive for a particular manufacturer.
Credible firearm coverage requires firsthand testing, technical knowledge by the reviewer and the freedom to report a product’s shortcomings as readily as its strengths. Content creators are already required to disclose if they were paid or received a product from a manufacturer. But viewers also deserve product reviews judged on their substance rather than being dismissed because a commercial relationship exists. That distinction becomes critical when a platform treats the relationship itself as grounds for restricting otherwise permissible content.
YouTube’s Disclosure Dilemma
YouTube defines branded content as “material influenced by a brand partner in exchange for something of value, including payment, free products or sponsorships.” Creators must identify qualifying content through the platform’s paid-promotion declaration. Its updated policy prohibits branded content featuring firearms or ammunition, with the restriction applying to the entire video rather than only its sponsored portion.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), meanwhile, requires creators to disclose material brand connections in endorsements when those relationships are not reasonably expected by viewers. Free products and other benefits may trigger that obligation even when a creator believes the review is unbiased.
A firearm content creator now faces a Hobson’s choice: Disclose a material relationship as FTC guidance requires, most likely rendering the video prohibited under YouTube’s branded-content policy because it features a firearm or ammunition.
The policy also leaves consequential questions unanswered. How will YouTube distinguish a temporary product loan from a free product? When does manufacturer access influence content? Could an unrelated sponsorship place an entire firearm review within the prohibition?
For creators who invest in products, ammunition, testing and production before a video is published, those distinctions determine more than disclosure language. They may determine whether the video can appear on YouTube at all.
When “Advertising” Becomes a Legal Question
The boundary between independent coverage and manufacturer-directed promotion is also drawing attention in legal challenges seeking to hold manufacturers liable for the third-party criminal misuse of their products based on “marketing” and “advertising” claims.
Attorney and firearm reviewer James Reeves says he received a third-party subpoena in the Roberts v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., litigation stemming from the 2022 Highland Park, Ill., murders. Some of the plaintiffs are represented by the legal arm of (with the help of the big antigun law firm Paul Weiss). Reeves is not a defendant, and he is not alone, as dozens of content creators have received similar requests. According to reporting on the subpoena, plaintiffs are seeking records concerning his Smith & Wesson content and manufacturer relationships. The request reportedly defines advertising broadly enough to encompass unpaid social media content.
That distinction matters under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which generally bars certain lawsuits seeking to hold lawful and highly-regulated firearm manufacturers and sellers responsible for harm caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of their products. One exception permits claims involving a manufacturer or seller that knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to a product’s sale or marketing when that violation proximately caused the alleged harm.
As plaintiffs continue to push these advertising and marketing theories, courts will have to grapple with important questions, such as whether a creator’s review becomes corporate advertising merely because a manufacturer supplied the firearm. YouTube’s policy and the Highland Park litigation involve separate questions. The common thread is the growing significance of how relationships between firearm manufacturers and independent creators are defined, as well as Everytown’s efforts to establish a nefarious link between the two.
The Stakes for Firearm Media
Social media platforms have restricted content from competitive shooters, firearm educators and other lawful voices. NSSF previously highlighted actions involving Paralympic medalist McKenna Geer, USA Shooting athletes, the West Point Rifle Team and popular firearm education channel Hickok45.
The problem is real enough that NSSF held a webinar earlier this year specifically addressing how firearm retailers, ranges and manufacturers can navigate shifting social media rules that can result in content being demonetized, struck or removed.
YouTube already restricts content facilitating firearm sales and certain manufacturing or modification instructions. Enforcing rules against prohibited conduct is one thing. Treating a lawful product review as impermissible because of a disclosed manufacturer relationship is another.
The timing of YouTube’s policy change and the report from The Smoking Gun — an online so-called “newsroom” that is “committed to exposing the gun industry’s role in our gun violence epidemic today through news stories, in-depth research, profiles on firearm manufacturers and suppliers, data, and more” — warrants scrutiny, including Everytown’s role, to say the least. The immediate consequences need no speculation: Creators face greater uncertainty over how to disclose commercial relationships; manufacturers face new questions about providing products for evaluation; and viewers risk losing access to beneficial and quality independent product coverage.
Transparency should clarify who paid for or supplied a product. It should not erase the distinction between a candid review and an advertisement.
– Jenn Jacques, Public Affairs Manager, National Shooting Sports Foundation
