Search
The Kovdor District Court in Murmansk region fined a 72-year-old Ukrainian citizen, Vasily Yovdiy, 30,000 roubles (approx. US$335) under the protocol for “discrediting the army” (Part 1, Article 20.3.3 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences) because of his likes on YouTube. The decision, which was highlighted by Verska, drew public attention.
This is the first known case relating specifically to YouTube likes. Previously, users of “Odnoklassniki” had faced prosecution for likes, but in that social network, a like also acts as a repost. There have also been reports of administrative cases over likes in Telegram, Viber, and VK, where other users can see who has liked content. Most of these cases have emerged in Crimea, and often concern not only likes but also people’s comments. In those platforms, likes are visible to others.
On YouTube, however, it is not possible to see where a user has left a like unless their Liked Videos playlist is publicly accessible.
According to the court decision, Yovdiy’s likes were found by FSB border officials in Kovdor (a mining town in north-west Russia) who accessed his phone and discovered a YouTube playlist of videos he liked.
The judge, Yegor Valaitus, decided the elderly Ukrainian had publicly discredited the army by “leaving approving comments (reactions in the form of 'likes')” under three videos. Two of them were related to people with “foreign agent” status (their names were withheld; one was referred to as a “Ukrainian propagandist” in the ruling). The actual content of these videos was not discussed in court.
Evgeny Smirnov, a lawyer from First Department, told Verska that, as a result, the judge effectively treated the videos as discrediting the army just because “foreign agents” took part in them.
Another video liked by Yovdiy was about the killing of Igor Kirillov, head of the radiation, chemical and biological defence troops, reportedly as a result of a scooter explosion outside his home.
The elderly man admitted guilt. He did not attend the court hearing.
“This decision, of course, is confusing. In this case, an 'approving reaction' is understood to count as an expression, but whether this reaction refers to the whole video, just a part of it, or was simply clicked accidentally—there is no reliable way to find out.
If only the content creator can see the like, then it cannot be public. If people who have liked YouTube videos are not visible, the only way to discover them is by accessing the device itself. Which brings us back to the rule that you should never hand your device over to anyone while it is switched on,” said an OVD-Info lawyer.
The lawyer also pointed out that the court’s ruling contains serious legal violations and appears unfounded:
“The case was initiated following an FSB investigation, yet for some reason the materials were passed to the prosecutor’s office instead of the police. In addition, the court cited legislation on countering extremist activity and information law regarding the ban on distributing extremist material. What possible connection this legislation has to proving an offence under the article on ‘discrediting the army’ is completely unclear.”
In the same Kovdor court on 23 December 2025, another protocol was filed against Yovdiy—this time under the article on displaying banned symbols (Part 1, Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences). The judge returned this case to the office that compiled it.
According to Verska, Yovdiy is 72. He last logged in to his “VK” profile about a month ago. The publication was unable to get in contact with him.