That's not the issue here. The issue is that YT is (arguably) using illegal measures to enforce their own rights. Just because someone infringes on your rights doesn't make it legal for you to infringe back on theirs.
I'm not contesting the legitimacy of YT fighting ad blockers. I'm merely pointing out that the claim here is that they are doing so using illegal means (by using what can be legally seen as spyware without the user's consent, which is illegal in the EU, according to the plaintiff).
In other words, the issue is not that YT fights back, it's how they do it.
Are you familiar with keggerator systems with usage quotas? ("Free as in beer")
How can a computerized keggerator system (or a bartender) limit a person to a specific number of drafts from the tap? Is that spyware, or what you agree to when you draw from their kegs?
