System audit · unofficial

How a channel can be deleted by a single false report

This is not a campaign for subscribers. It is a public record of a YouTube system vulnerability — backed by facts, with a timeline that makes sense.

Current case status

Last update 16. 3. 2026 08:41

Currently being addressed

YouTube still has not provided a substantive response to the GDPR / DSAR request

Next step

Escalation of the case to the Czech Data Protection Authority

The main channel remains deleted, the sub-channels were restored, but YouTube still has not provided a proper substantive response to the GDPR request. The focus is now on the controller's handling of the request and the formal escalation of the matter.

Main channel: deleted

Sub-channels: restored

GDPR request: active

View timeline What I demand

01 · Summary

What happened

TL;DR — In brief

The channel was deleted following a series of fraudulent reports that misused the identity of Weemazz.

Fraudulent claims withdrawn — sub-channels restored. Direct proof of a system error.

The main channel remains labelled as "spam" even though all original grounds for sanctions have disappeared.

Goal: a manual review of the entire case by a real person, not another template response.

Channel status

Deleted

since Dec 20, 2025

False claims

all withdrawn

Sub-channels

2 / 2

restored Jan 27–28

Case ID

1-5668000040345

assigned Feb 3, 2026

Core of the problem

The system can retroactively remove false claims, but cannot consistently restore the original account status. The penalty remains in force even when the reasons that triggered it no longer exist in the system.

Key evidence

Sub-channels were restored within 24 hours of the fraudulent claims being withdrawn. This proves the problem was not a "spam identity" — it was a faulty chain of events the system failed to resolve on its own.

Why I am making this public

Out of a sense of injustice as the injured party. I want a competent person to manually review the full story — not have it rejected by an automated system. Sharing helps — please do not harass individuals.

02 · Demands

What I am seeking

Manual review of the deletion

A review by a real person, not a template response. The entire context must be assessed as a whole — not as a series of isolated automated decisions.

Verification of the reporting party's legitimacy

The attacker impersonated Weemazz. The rights holder themselves confirmed this in writing and provided a screenshot of an e-mail sent to YouTube.

Restoration of the channel

If a procedural error or system abuse is confirmed. Sub-channels have been restored — this is a direct precedent for the same solution on the main channel.

Explanation of the "spam" verdict

The sanctions concerned copyright — not spam. Why is the "spam" label final, even though all the claims that triggered it were recognised as fraudulent?

03 · Timeline

What happened and when

Compiled from official e-mails and support communications. I am not publishing the full scope — I do not want to spread internal metadata or create a guide for attackers.

Phase 1 · Attack and termination of the main channel Closed

Dec 12, 2025

Verified

First strike — start of the attack

Received the first copyright strike following a request to remove three videos. At that moment there was no indication that this was the beginning of a coordinated attack misusing the identity of Weemazz.

e-mail notification from YouTube

Dec 20, 2025

Verified

Main channel deleted for "spam"

Without warning, an e-mail arrives about the channel's deletion due to alleged spam. This is not just a loss of videos — it is the immediate destruction of history, identity and thousands of hours of work with no real possibility of immediate defence.

e-mail notification of channel deletion

Dec 20, 2025

Verified

Paradox: further sanctions arrive AFTER deletion

Shortly after the channel's deletion, another e-mail arrives about the removal of seven videos — including those from Dec 12, 2025. The system imposed punishment before delivering a complete list of alleged violations. The penalty thus preceded its own justification.

e-mail + chronological sequence

Dec 20, 2025

Verified

Appeal filed — immediately rejected by automation

An appeal was filed immediately, met with a purely automated template response. The system confirmed the reason as "spam" — yet the sanctions concerned copyright-related video removal, not spam. The logical inconsistency was completely ignored.

both the appeal and the response are verifiable

Dec 21, 2025

Verified

Actual rights holder contacted (Weemazz)

Mr Horák from Weemazz was contacted with an explanation of the situation. By pure chance, the e-mail address listed in the report was ignored and the company was contacted directly via their website — thereby unwittingly avoiding communication with the attacker, who had provided a fraudulent address in the report.

communication verifiable (redacted)

Dec 22, 2025

Verified

First remediation: partial withdrawal of claims

Although Mr Horák did not respond directly to the request, the actions of the YouTube Copyright team indicate that he had the claims withdrawn that originally led to the termination of the channel.

change in claim status is verifiable

Dec 23, 2025

Verified

1st sub-channel deleted

As part of the chain reaction triggered by the deletion of the main account, the first associated channel is removed.

e-mail

Phase 2 · Consequences of incomplete remediation Closed

Jan 12, 2026

Verified

New appeal — robotic loop

A further appeal was filed arguing that, following the partial withdrawal of claims, the remaining ones must also be withdrawn as they originate from the same fraudulent party. YouTube again rejects it with a generic template response.

both the appeal and the response are verifiable

Jan 12, 2026

Verified

Key turning point: Weemazz confirms fraud in writing

A message is received from Mr Horák confirming that the reports of Dec 12 and Dec 20, 2025 were not sent by him or his company — they were an identity theft. As proof he sent a screenshot of the e-mail he sent to the YouTube copyright department on Dec 22, 2025. Although YouTube withdrew some claims in response, it inexplicably left several active — a critical error in their team's procedure.

e-mail communication and screenshot are available

Jan 13, 2026

Verified

Domino effect: 2nd sub-channel deleted

Despite Weemazz's confirmation of fraud, the sanctions continue — the second associated channel is deleted. The appeal of Jan 15, 2026 is unsuccessful.

notification / channel status

Jan 15, 2026

Verified

Root cause identified: 3 remaining false claims

It is established that three false claims are still active. Mr Horák is once again contacted with a request to have them removed so the channel can finally be cleared.

ongoing communication

Jan 16, 2026

Verified

Escalation by the rights holder

Mr Horák confirms that he has sent an e-mail to the YouTube copyright department requesting the withdrawal of the remaining three false claims.

sending confirmed

Jan 19, 2026

Verified

All claims successfully withdrawn

YouTube accepts Mr Horák's request and withdraws the remaining false claims. The account is now completely clean from a copyright perspective. The channel, however, remains deleted for "spam".

withdrawal confirmation

Jan 19, 2026

Verified

Restoration attempt via Google form

An alternative route is tried via the account recovery form. The automated system again rejects — an appeal has already been filed and the earlier decision must stand. The loop continues.

system response

Jan 27, 2026

Verified

Second wave of sub-channel appeals

After the 14-day waiting period, the system once again allows appeals for the sub-channels. The option is used immediately.

submission confirmed

Phase 3 · Proof of systemic failure Closed

Jan 27–28, 2026

Verified

Sub-channels restored — direct proof

Both sub-channels are restored within 24 hours of the appeal being filed. This is direct proof: once the fraudulent claims were removed, "spam" ceased to exist for the system. The main channel, however, remains trapped in the erroneous label that was not corrected in the account decision after the copyright claims were remedied.

channel restoration documented

Phase 4 · Endless loop and the "final" verdict Ongoing

Jan 29, 2026

Verified

Support request — wall of templates

A detailed explanation is sent to Creator Support. The response is a link to the account recovery form, which leads back to the very beginning of the loop. No progress.

communication (redacted)

Jan 30, 2026

Verified

Confirmation of the "spammer" label

Partner support confirms that the account carries an internal spam label. The explanation that this is a consequence of fraudulent claims is ignored. The appeal for the main channel is rejected again.

support response

Feb 3, 2026

Verified

Final rejection — case ID assigned

YouTube declares its decision final and assigns case ID 1-5668000040345. The system refuses to acknowledge the logical connection with the restored sub-channels. The only realistic way forward is a manual review of the entire chain of events.

case ID provided

Feb 4, 2026

Sent

Rights holder intervention

Mr Horák personally contacts YouTube requesting remediation. If even direct confirmation from the "injured" party (the rights holder themselves) does not help, the remediation process is definitively broken.

intervention confirmed

Feb 5, 2026

Pending

YouTube responds — requests additional information

Following Mr Horák's intervention, YouTube requests additional information — specifically the channel URL and associated e-mail. This information is promptly forwarded for escalation.

private communication

Feb 9, 2026

Pending

Status after fraud acknowledgement: main channel still deleted

Although Weemazz confirmed the fraudulent attacks and the system withdrew the false claims, the main channel remains listed as deleted for "spam". This appears to be an account state inconsistency — the remediation of copyright claims does not propagate into the account decision. The goal is to obtain a manual review and correction of the status to the pre-attack state.

private communication

Feb 9, 2026

Verified

Further appeal automatically rejected

A further appeal attempt was rejected within minutes by a template response referencing the previous decision. A clear signal: the appeal was not assessed individually. The only realistic course is a manual review of the entire chain.

YouTube automated response

Phase 5 · Legal steps and GDPR Active

Feb 9, 2026

Verified

GDPR request filed (Art. 15 and 22)

After repeated automated rejections, a formal request is filed under Art. 15 and 22 GDPR. Requesting access to personal data, an explanation of the automated decision-making logic, information about internal labels (e.g. "spam") and whether (and how) the confirmed fraudulent third-party reports were taken into account.

legal request filed

Feb 9, 2026

Verified

YouTube Legal confirms receipt — reference assigned

YouTube Legal Support confirms receipt of the request and assigns reference number HYKABV4SJ75EB6TPR4QG6EK5GA.

Ref: HYKABV4SJ75EB6TPR4QG6EK5GA · e-mail from YouTube Legal Support

Feb 10, 2026

Verified

YouTube requests channel URL

YouTube Legal states that based on the information provided it cannot locate the account (username) and requests the channel URL as an identifier.

e-mail from YouTube Legal (privacy)

Feb 10, 2026

Verified

Channel URL sent

The channel URL is sent as a unique identifier — given that the account is suspended and YouTube Studio is unavailable, the URL is the only available reference.

reply sent

Feb 11, 2026

Verified

Off-topic response: link to standard appeal

Instead of a substantive response to the GDPR request, a template response arrives referring to the standard account deletion appeal process. The GDPR request (Art. 15/22) is completely ignored.

YouTube Legal template response

Feb 11, 2026

Verified

Clarification: this is a DSAR, requesting confirmation of processing

A reply is sent clarifying that this is not a standard appeal but a request under Art. 15 and 22 GDPR (DSAR). Confirmation is requested that the request is being handled as a DSAR and will be substantively addressed.

reply sent

Feb 12, 2026

Verified

Repeated template: link to appeal (outside DSAR)

The same automated response referring to the appeal process arrives again from the privacy ticket. The response does not address the GDPR request (Art. 15/22) — it appears to be a mis-routing of the ticket into the support template. The ticket awaits correct processing as a DSAR.

e-mail YouTube Legal Support Team · repeated template

Feb 12, 2026

Waiting

Repeated clarification: DSAR, not an appeal

Another reply emphasises that this is a formal DSAR under Art. 15 and 22 GDPR, not a standard appeal. Requesting access to all personal data processed in connection with the account, information about the automated decision-making logic (the "spam" label), and an explanation of why internal labels were not corrected after the withdrawal of fraudulent claims. Awaiting correct processing.

reply sent to privacy ticket

Mar 6, 2026

Waiting

Follow-up after the deadline passed without a substantive reply

Nearly a month after filing the DSAR, another follow-up is sent. It reiterates that this is not a standard appeal but a GDPR request under Art. 15 and 22, which still has not been substantively answered.

follow-up sent to the privacy / legal ticket

Mar 16, 2026

Escalated

Complaint prepared for the Czech Data Protection Authority

Because no proper substantive response arrived even after the follow-up, the case is being escalated today to the Czech Data Protection Authority. The goal is to review whether the DSAR was handled and answered properly under GDPR.

complaint to the Czech Data Protection Authority

04 · Evidence

What I have available

Sanction notifications

E-mails about every sanction and deletion, chronologically documented.

Withdrawal of claims

Confirmation of the withdrawal of all 10 false claims.

Channel restoration

Proof of the successful restoration of both sub-channels.

Communications

Complete archive with Creator Support and YouTube Legal.

Fraud confirmation

Written confirmation from Weemazz + screenshot of the e-mail sent to YouTube.

GDPR / DSAR

Formal request + receipt confirmation from YouTube Legal.

Why am I not publishing the details? I do not want to create a guide for system abuse. Screenshots are available to a trusted third party — journalists, lawyers or YouTube employees. Contact: contact(at)yt-is-broken.com

05 · FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Why are some data anonymised?

To protect privacy and security. This is documentation of a system failure, not a guide for attackers. Sensitive materials are available to a trusted third party on request.

Why is the case ID public?

ID 1-5668000040345 serves to uniquely identify the incident in Google's systems. A competent person can immediately look it up and verify the accuracy of the entire timeline.

Is this a call for attacks or spam against YouTube?

Absolutely not. The aim is a constructive notification of a system error. Please refrain from attacks or spam directed at support employees. The problem is the process — not individuals.

What exactly would resolve the situation?

A manual review of the entire case. If a competent person acknowledges that the deletion was a consequence of fraudulent reports that no longer exist in the system — the solution is to reset the account status to the state before the attack.

Why does a copyright issue lead to a "spam" label?

This is one of the key mysteries of the case. The sanctions concerned copyright — yet the channel was labelled as "spam". This discrepancy has not yet been explained and is part of the GDPR request (Art. 22).

How can I help?

By sharing this page. If you are a journalist, lawyer or YouTube employee — contact me at contact(at)yt-is-broken.com. Supporting materials are ready.