In a decision issued by a Krasnogvardeysky District Court in St. Petersburg, the slowdown of YouTube traffic became the focal point of a residents’ complaint. The court declined to require Roskomnadzor to review the matter, effectively dismissing Vadim Matveev’s request that the regulator examine the alleged slowdown. The ruling reflects the court’s stance on whether regulatory agencies should be pulled into assessments of how a global video platform performs for individual users.
In his claim, Matveev argued that beginning in July 2024 he experienced a noticeable drop in data speeds when accessing YouTube.com. He criticized Roskomnadzor for not acting and pressed the agency to investigate possible violations of his right to freely seek information. He contended that the regulator’s approach undermined the constitutional framework meant to safeguard the country’s commitment to ideological diversity and the free exchange of information.
The court’s decision was explained as a move to reject the petition by noting that a court’s ability to review the legality of regulatory actions or inaction tied to the protection of subjective rights is limited in this context. In essence, the court described abstract normative control over administrative decisions as outside the proper scope of its function in such cases.
On December 19, President Vladimir Putin addressed the issue of YouTube slowing down during a live broadcast. He stated that questions about video hosting services based in the United States persist and urged both YouTube and Google to adhere to Russian laws and to guard against online scams. The president asserted that these services violate the laws of the Russian Federation and that Roskomnadzor’s claims against them were warranted.
Earlier reporting indicated that Russians commonly utilize acceleration tools to improve YouTube speeds, a practice driven by the demand for smoother video playback and greater access to online content.
The situation sits at the crossroads of regulatory oversight, user access to information, and the obligations of foreign platforms operating within Russia. It highlights ongoing tensions between citizens seeking reliable online information and regulators who prioritize alignment with national legal standards, while platforms navigate Russia’s regulatory expectations and enforcement landscape.
Taken together, the court’s decision, the presidential comments, and the broader user practices illustrate how discussions about internet performance, information rights, and platform compliance continue to unfold in Russia’s digital environment.