The Hidden Cost of Ad-Free: When Premium Subscriptions Still Sell You Something

You pay £10.99 every month for Spotify Premium. You're shelling out £17.99 for Netflix's Standard plan. The deal seems straightforward: no adverts. Your listening and viewing experience stays pure, uninterrupted by commercial messages trying to sell you things. Clean. Simple. Worth it.

But here's the uncomfortable bit. What happens when that track surfacing in your Discover Weekly playlist, the one that feels perfectly tailored to your taste, is actually sitting there because the artist accepted reduced royalties for promotional placement? What if that show dominating your Netflix homepage wasn't prioritised by viewing patterns at all, but by a studio's commercial arrangement?

Welcome to 2025's peculiar paradox of premium subscriptions. Paying to avoid advertising might not protect you from being advertised to. It just means the sales pitch arrives wrapped in the language of personalisation rather than interruption. The algorithm knows what you want. Trust the algorithm. Except the algorithm might be serving someone else's interests entirely.

Here's what millions of subscribers are starting to realise: the question isn't whether they're being marketed to through these platforms. The evidence suggests they absolutely are. The real question is whether this constitutes a breach of contract, a violation of consumer protection law, or simply a fundamental reimagining of what advertising means when algorithms run the show.

The Architecture of Influence

To understand how we got here, you need to grasp how recommendation algorithms actually work. These systems aren't passive mirrors reflecting your preferences back at you. They're active agents shaping what you see, hear, and ultimately consume.

Netflix has stated publicly that 75 to 80 per cent of all viewing hours on its platform come from algorithmic recommendations, not user searches. The vast majority of what Netflix subscribers watch isn't content they actively sought out. It's content the algorithm decided to surface, using collaborative filtering that examines viewing behaviour patterns across millions of users. You think you're choosing. You're mostly accepting suggestions.

Spotify combines collaborative filtering with natural language processing and audio analysis. The platform analyses your listening history, playlist additions, skip rates, save rates (tracks with save rates above 8 per cent are 3.5 times more likely to receive algorithmic playlist placements), and dozens of other engagement metrics. Algorithmic playlists like Discover Weekly, Release Radar, and Radio now account for approximately 35 per cent of new artist discoveries, compared to 28 per cent from editorial playlists.

These numbers reveal something crucial. The algorithm isn't just a feature of these platforms. It's the primary interface through which content reaches audiences. Control the algorithm, and you control visibility. Control visibility, and you control commercial success.

Which raises an uncomfortable question: what happens when access to that algorithm becomes something you can buy?

Discovery Mode and the Spectre of Payola

In 2020, Spotify introduced Discovery Mode. The feature allows artists and labels to designate specific tracks as priorities for algorithmic consideration. These flagged tracks become more likely to appear in Radio, Autoplay, and certain algorithmically generated Mixes. The cost? Artists accept reduced royalties on streams generated through these promotional placements.

Spotify frames this as an opt-in marketing tool rather than paid promotion. “It doesn't buy plays, it doesn't affect editorial playlists, and it's clearly disclosed in the app and on our website,” a company spokesperson stated. But critics see something else entirely: a modern reincarnation of payola, the practice of secretly paying radio stations for airplay. Payola has been illegal in the United States since 1960.

The comparison isn't casual. Payola regulations emerged from the Communications Act of 1934, requiring broadcasters to disclose when material was paid for or sponsored. The Federal Communications Commission treats violations seriously. In 2007, four major radio companies settled payola accusations for $12.5 million.

But here's the catch. Spotify isn't a broadcaster subject to FCC jurisdiction. It's an internet platform, operating in a regulatory grey zone where traditional payola rules simply don't apply. The FTC's general sponsorship disclosure requirements are far less stringent than those of broadcasters, as one legal analysis noted.

In March 2025, this regulatory gap became the subject of litigation. A class action lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court alleged that Discovery Mode constitutes a “modern form of payola” that allows record labels and artists to secretly pay for promotional visibility. The lawsuit's central claim cuts right to it: “Telling users that 'commercial considerations may influence' recommendations does not reveal which songs are being promoted commercially and which are being recommended organically. Without that specificity, users cannot distinguish between genuine personalisation and covert advertising.”

Spotify called the lawsuit “nonsense”, insisting it gets “basic facts” wrong. But the case crystallises the core tension. Even if Spotify discloses that commercial considerations might influence recommendations, that disclosure appears in settings or help documentation that most users never read. The recommendations themselves carry no marker indicating whether they're organic algorithmic suggestions or commercially influenced placements.

For premium subscribers, this matters. They're paying specifically to avoid commercial interruption. But if the personalised playlists they receive contain tracks placed there through commercial arrangements, are they still receiving what they paid for? Or did the definition of “ad-free” quietly shift when no one was looking?

Netflix's Algorithmic Opacity

Netflix operates differently from Spotify, but faces similar questions about the relationship between commercial interests and recommendation algorithms. The platform positions its recommendation system as editorially driven personalisation, using sophisticated machine learning to match content with viewer preferences.

Yet Netflix's business model creates inherent conflicts of interest. The platform both licenses content from third parties and produces its own original programming. When Netflix's algorithm recommends a Netflix original, the company benefits twice: first from subscription revenue, and second from building the value of its content library. When it recommends licensed content, it pays licensing fees whilst generating no additional revenue beyond existing subscriptions.

The economic incentives are clear. Netflix benefits most when subscribers watch Netflix-produced content. Does this influence what the algorithm surfaces? Netflix maintains that recommendations are driven purely by predicted viewing enjoyment, not corporate financial interests. But the opacity of proprietary algorithms makes independent verification impossible.

One researcher observed that “The most transparent company I've seen thus far is Netflix, and even they bury the details in their help docs.” Another noted that “lack of transparency isn't just annoying; it's a critical flaw. When we don't understand the logic, we can't trust the suggestion.”

This opacity matters particularly for ad-free subscribers. Netflix's Standard plan costs £17.99 monthly in the UK, whilst the ad-supported tier costs just £7.99. Those paying more than double for an ad-free experience presumably expect recommendations driven by their viewing preferences, not Netflix's production investments.

But proving that content receives preferential algorithmic treatment based on commercial interests is nearly impossible from the outside. The algorithms are proprietary. The training data is private. The decision-making logic is opaque. Subscribers are asked to trust that platforms prioritise user satisfaction over commercial interests, but have no way to verify that trust is warranted.

The Blurring Line Between Curation and Commerce

The distinction between editorial curation and advertising has always been fuzzy. Magazine editors choose which products to feature based on editorial judgement, but those judgements inevitably reflect commercial relationships with advertisers. The difference is disclosure: advertorial content is supposed to be clearly labelled.

Digital platforms have eroded this distinction further. YouTube allows creators to embed sponsorships directly into their content. Even YouTube Premium subscribers, who pay to avoid YouTube's own advertisements, still see these creator-embedded sponsored segments. The platform requires creators to flag videos containing paid promotions, triggering a disclosure label at the start of the video.

This creates a two-tier advertising system: YouTube's own ads, which Premium subscribers avoid, and creator-embedded sponsors, which appear regardless of subscription status. But at least these sponsorships are disclosed as paid promotions. The situation becomes murkier when platforms use algorithmic recommendations influenced by commercial considerations without clear disclosure at the point of recommendation.

Research into algorithmic bias has documented several types of systematic preferential treatment in recommendation systems. Popularity bias causes algorithms to favour already-popular content. Exposure bias means recommendations depend partly on which items are made available to the algorithm. Position bias gives preference to items presented prominently.

More concerning is the documented potential for commercial bias. In a 1998 paper describing Google, the company's founders argued that “advertising-funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers.” That was Larry Page and Sergey Brin, before Google became the advertising-funded search engine. A president of an airline testified to the United States Congress that a flight recommendation system was created with the explicit intention of gaining competitive advantage through preferential treatment.

These examples demonstrate that recommendation systems can be, and have been, designed to serve commercial interests over user preferences. The question for streaming platforms is whether they're doing the same thing, and if so, whether their ad-free subscribers have been adequately informed.

Contract, Consumer Protection, and Advertising Law

When you subscribe to Spotify Premium or Netflix, you enter a contractual relationship. What exactly has been promised regarding advertisements and commercial content? The answer matters.

Spotify Premium's marketing emphasises “ad-free music listening.” But what counts as an ad? Is a track that appears in your Discover Weekly because the artist accepted reduced royalties for promotional placement an advertisement? Spotify would likely argue it isn't, because the track wasn't inserted as an interruptive commercial message. Critics would counter that if the track's appearance was influenced by commercial considerations, it's advertising by another name.

Contract law offers some guidance. In February 2025, a federal judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit challenging Amazon Prime Video's introduction of advertisements. The lawsuit argued that adding ads breached the subscription contract and violated state consumer protection laws. Amazon had begun showing advertisements to Prime Video users unless they paid an additional $2.99 monthly for an ad-free experience.

The court sided with Amazon. The reasoning? Amazon's terms of service explicitly reserve the right to change the Prime Video service. “Plaintiffs did not purchase access to 'ad-free Prime Video,' let alone an ad-free Prime Video that Amazon promised would remain ad-free,” the court stated. “They purchased access to Prime Video, subject to any changes that Amazon was contractually authorised 'in its sole discretion' to make.”

This decision establishes important precedent. Platforms can modify their services, including adding advertisements, if their terms of service reserve that right and subscribers accepted those terms. But it doesn't address the subtler question of whether algorithmically surfaced content influenced by commercial considerations constitutes advertising that breaches an ad-free promise.

UK consumer protection law offers potentially stronger protections. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 prohibits misleading actions and omissions. If platforms market subscriptions as “ad-free” whilst simultaneously surfacing content based on commercial arrangements without adequate disclosure, this could constitute a misleading omission under UK law.

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 strengthens these protections significantly. Provisions taking effect in April 2025 and through 2026 require businesses to provide clear pre-contract information about subscription services. More importantly, the Act prohibits “drip pricing,” where consumers see an initial price but then face additional undisclosed fees.

The drip pricing prohibition is particularly relevant here. If subscribers pay for an ad-free experience but then receive algorithmically surfaced content influenced by commercial arrangements, could this be considered a form of drip pricing, where the true nature of the service isn't fully disclosed upfront?

The Act also grants the Competition and Markets Authority new direct consumer enforcement powers, including the ability to impose turnover-based fines up to 10 per cent of a company's global annual turnover for breaches of UK consumer law. That creates real enforcement teeth that didn't previously exist.

FTC guidance in the United States requires that advertising disclosures be “clear and conspicuous,” difficult to miss and easy to understand. The FTC has also issued guidance specific to algorithmic decision-making, stating that when companies rely on algorithms to make significant decisions affecting consumers, they must be able to disclose the key factors influencing those decisions.

Applying this to streaming recommendations raises uncomfortable questions. If Spotify's Discovery Mode influences which tracks appear in personalised playlists, shouldn't each recommended track indicate whether it's there through organic algorithmic selection or commercial arrangement? If Netflix's algorithm gives preferential treatment to Netflix originals, shouldn't recommendations disclose this bias?

The current practice of burying general disclosures in terms of service or help documentation may not satisfy regulatory requirements for clear and conspicuous disclosure. Particularly for UK subscribers, where the CMA now has enhanced enforcement powers, platforms may face increasing pressure to provide more transparent, point-of-recommendation disclosures about commercial influences on algorithmic curation.

The Business Model Incentive Structure

To understand why platforms might blur the line between organic recommendations and commercial placements, consider their business models and revenue pressures.

Spotify operates on razor-thin margins, paying approximately 70 per cent of its revenue to rights holders. Despite having 626 million monthly active users as of Q3 2024, profitability remains elusive. Advertising revenue from the free tier reached €1.85 billion in 2024, a 10 per cent increase, but still represents only a fraction of total revenue.

Discovery Mode offers Spotify a way to extract additional value without raising subscription prices or adding interruptive advertisements. Artists and labels desperate for visibility accept reduced royalties, improving Spotify's margins on those streams whilst maintaining the appearance of an ad-free premium experience.

Netflix faces different but related pressures. The company spent billions building its original content library. Every subscriber who watches licensed content instead of Netflix originals represents a missed opportunity to build the value of Netflix's proprietary assets. This creates powerful incentives to steer subscribers toward Netflix-produced content through algorithmic recommendations.

For all these platforms, the challenge is balancing user satisfaction against revenue optimisation. Degrade the user experience too much, and subscribers cancel. But leave revenue opportunities untapped, and shareholders demand explanation.

Algorithmic curation influenced by commercial considerations represents a solution to this tension. Unlike interruptive advertising, which users clearly recognise and often resent, algorithmically surfaced paid placements disguised as personalised recommendations can generate revenue whilst maintaining the appearance of an ad-free experience.

At least until users realise what's happening. Which they're starting to do.

Platform Disclosures and the Limits of Fine Print

Spotify does disclose that commercial considerations may influence recommendations. The platform's help documentation states: “We may use the information we collect about you, including information about your use of Spotify...for commercial or sponsored content.”

But this disclosure is generic and buried in documentation most users never read. Research consistently shows that users don't read terms of service. One study found that it would take 76 work days annually for the average internet user to read the privacy policies of every website they visit.

Even users who do read terms of service face another problem: the disclosures are vague. Spotify's statement that it “may use” information “for commercial or sponsored content” doesn't specify which recommendations are influenced by commercial considerations and which aren't.

YouTube's approach offers a potential model for more transparent disclosure. When creators flag content as containing paid promotions, YouTube displays “Includes paid promotion” at the start of the video. This disclosure is clear, conspicuous, and appears at the point of consumption, not buried in settings or help documentation.

Applying this model to Spotify and Netflix would mean flagging specific recommendations as commercially influenced at the point they're presented to users. A Discover Weekly track included through Discovery Mode could carry a discrete indicator: “Promotional placement.”

Platforms resist this level of transparency. Likely for good reason: clear disclosure would undermine the value of the placements. The effectiveness of algorithmically surfaced paid placements depends on users perceiving them as organic recommendations. Explicit labelling would destroy that perception.

This creates a fundamental conflict. Effective disclosure would negate the value of the commercial practice, whilst inadequate disclosure potentially misleads consumers about what they're paying for when they subscribe to ad-free services. Either kill the revenue stream or mislead subscribers.

Subscriber Expectations and the Ad-Free Promise

The Competition and Markets Authority's 2022 music streaming market study in the UK found that between 2019 and 2021, monthly active users of music streaming services increased from 32 million to 39 million, with Spotify commanding 50 to 60 per cent market share.

The rapid growth of ad-supported tiers reveals preferences. Netflix's ad-supported tier reached 45 per cent of US households by August 2025, up from just 34 per cent in 2024. This suggests many subscribers are willing to tolerate advertisements in exchange for lower prices. Conversely, those paying premium prices likely have stronger expectations of a genuinely ad-free experience.

The Amazon Prime Video lawsuit, whilst dismissed on contractual grounds, revealed subscriber frustration. Plaintiffs argued that Amazon “reaped undue benefits by marketing Prime Video as devoid of commercials before introducing ads.” The claim was that subscribers made purchasing decisions based on an understanding that the service would remain ad-free, even if the terms of service technically allowed modifications.

This points to a gap between legal obligations and reasonable consumer expectations. Legally, platforms can reserve broad rights to modify services if terms of service say so. But consumer protection law also recognises that businesses shouldn't exploit consumer ignorance or the impracticality of reading lengthy terms of service.

If most subscribers reasonably understand “ad-free” to mean “free from commercial promotion,” but platforms interpret it narrowly as “free from interruptive advertisement breaks,” there's a disconnect that arguably constitutes misleading marketing, particularly under UK consumer protection law. The gap between what subscribers think they're buying and what platforms think they're selling might be legally significant.

Regulatory Responses and Enforcement Gaps

Traditional advertising regulation developed for broadcast media and print publications. But streaming platforms exist in a regulatory gap. They're not broadcasters subject to FCC sponsorship identification rules. They're internet platforms, governed by general consumer protection law and advertising standards, but not by media-specific regulation.

The FTC has attempted to address this gap through guidance on digital advertising disclosure. The agency's 2013 guidance document “.Com Disclosures” established that online advertising must meet the same “clear and conspicuous” standard as offline advertising.

But enforcement remains limited. The FTC's 2023 orders to eight social media and video streaming platforms sought information about how companies scrutinise deceptive advertising. This was an information-gathering exercise, not enforcement action.

In the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority and the Committee of Advertising Practice provide self-regulatory oversight of advertising, but their jurisdiction over algorithmic content curation remains unclear.

The 2024 Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act provides the CMA with enhanced powers but doesn't specifically address algorithmic curation influenced by commercial considerations. The Act's fake reviews provisions require disclosure when reviews are incentivised, establishing a precedent for transparency when commercial considerations influence seemingly organic content. But the Act doesn't explicitly extend this principle to streaming recommendations.

In the United States, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr has raised questions about whether Spotify's Discovery Mode should be subject to payola-style regulation. This suggests growing regulatory interest, but actual enforcement remains uncertain.

The European Union's Digital Services Act, which took effect in 2024, requires very large online platforms to provide transparency about recommender systems, including meaningful information about the main parameters used and options for modifying recommendations. But “meaningful information” remains vaguely defined, and enforcement is still developing.

The Attention Economy's Ethical Dilemma

Step back from legal technicalities, and a broader ethical question emerges. Is it acceptable for platforms to sell access to user attention that users believed they were protecting by paying for ad-free subscriptions?

The attention economy frames user attention as a scarce resource that platforms compete to capture and monetise. Free services monetise attention through advertising. Paid services monetise attention through subscriptions. But increasingly, platforms want both revenue streams.

This becomes ethically questionable when it's not transparently disclosed. If Spotify Premium subscribers knew that their Discover Weekly playlists contain tracks that artists paid to place there (through reduced royalties), would they still perceive the service as ad-free? If Netflix subscribers understood that recommendations systematically favour Netflix originals for commercial reasons, would they trust the algorithm to serve their interests?

The counterargument is that some commercial influence on recommendations might actually benefit users. Discovery Mode, Spotify argues, helps artists find audiences who genuinely would enjoy their music. The commercial arrangement funds the algorithmic promotion, but the promotion only works if users actually like the tracks and engage with them.

But these justifications only work if users are informed and can make autonomous decisions about whether to trust platform recommendations. Without disclosure, users can't exercise informed consent. They're making decisions based on false assumptions about why those options are being presented.

This is where the practice crosses from aggressive business strategy into potential deception. The value of algorithmic recommendations depends on users trusting that recommendations serve their interests. If recommendations actually serve platforms' commercial interests, but users believe they serve their own interests, that's a betrayal of trust whether or not it violates specific regulations.

What Subscribers Actually Bought

Return to the original question. When you pay for Spotify Premium or Netflix's ad-free tier, what exactly are you buying?

Legally, you're buying whatever the terms of service say you're buying, subject to any modifications the platform reserved the right to make. The Amazon Prime Video decision establishes this clearly.

But consumer protection law recognises that contracts alone don't determine the full scope of seller obligations. Misleading marketing, unfair commercial practices, and violations of reasonable consumer expectations can override contractual language, particularly when contracts involve standard-form terms that consumers can't negotiate.

If platforms market subscriptions as “ad-free” using language that reasonably suggests freedom from commercial promotion, but then implement algorithmic curation influenced by commercial considerations without clear disclosure, this creates a gap between marketing representations and service reality. That gap might be legally significant.

For UK subscribers, the enhanced CMA enforcement powers under the 2024 Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act create real regulatory risk. The CMA can investigate potentially misleading marketing and unfair commercial practices, impose significant penalties, and require changes to business practices.

The Spotify Discovery Mode lawsuit will test whether courts view algorithmically surfaced paid placements in “ad-free” premium services as a form of undisclosed advertising that violates consumer protection law. The case's theory is that even if generic disclosure exists in help documentation, the lack of specific, point-of-recommendation disclosure means users can't distinguish organic recommendations from paid placements, making the practice deceptive.

If courts accept this reasoning, it could force platforms to implement recommendation-level disclosure similar to YouTube's “Includes paid promotion” labels. If courts reject it, platforms will have legal confirmation that generic disclosure in terms of service suffices, even if most users never read it.

The Transparency Reckoning

The streaming industry's approach to paid placements within algorithmically curated recommendations represents a test case for advertising ethics in the algorithmic age. Traditional advertising was interruptive and clearly labelled. You knew an ad when you saw one. Algorithmic advertising is integrated and often opaque. You might never know you're being sold to.

This evolution challenges foundational assumptions in advertising regulation. If users can't distinguish commercial promotion from organic recommendation, does disclosure buried in terms of service suffice? If platforms sell access to user attention through algorithmic placement, whilst simultaneously charging users for “ad-free” experiences, have those users received what they paid for?

The legal answers remain uncertain. The ethical answers seem clearer. Subscribers paying for ad-free experiences reasonably expect that personalised recommendations serve their interests, not platforms' commercial interests. When recommendations are influenced by commercial considerations without clear, point-of-recommendation disclosure, platforms are extracting value from subscriber attention that subscribers believed they were protecting by paying premium prices.

The resolution will likely come through some combination of regulatory enforcement, litigation, and market pressure. The CMA's enhanced powers under the 2024 Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act create significant UK enforcement risk. The Spotify Discovery Mode lawsuit could establish important US precedent. And subscriber awareness, once raised, creates market pressure for greater transparency.

Platforms can respond by embracing transparency, clearly labelling which recommendations involve commercial considerations. They can create new subscription tiers offering guaranteed recommendation purity at premium prices. Or they can continue current practices and hope that generic disclosure in terms of service provides sufficient legal protection whilst subscriber awareness remains low.

But that last option becomes less viable as awareness grows. Journalists are investigating. Regulators are questioning. Subscribers are litigating.

The ad-free promise, it turns out, is more complicated than it appeared. What subscribers thought they were buying may not be what platforms thought they were selling. And that gap, in both legal and ethical terms, is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

When platforms sell recommendation influence whilst simultaneously charging for ad-free experiences, they're not just optimising business models. They're redefining the fundamental bargain of premium subscriptions: from “pay to avoid commercial interruption” to “pay for algorithmically optimised commercial integration.” That's quite a shift. Whether anyone actually agreed to it is another question entirely.

Whether that redefinition survives regulatory scrutiny, legal challenge, and subscriber awareness remains to be seen. But the question is now being asked, clearly and publicly: what exactly did we buy when we paid for ad-free? And if what we received isn't what we thought we were buying, what remedy do we deserve?

The answer will need to come soon. Because millions of subscribers are waiting.

References & Sources

Legal Cases and Regulatory Documents:

Research and Industry Reports:

Academic Research:

News and Industry Analysis:

Regulatory and Government Sources:

Platform Documentation:

Historical Context:

Industry Statistics:

Tim Green

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

Discuss...