Youtubers aren't employees of Youtube, they aren't even contractors, they are, well, I'm not sure what exactly... but it's like we are users that get a cut of revenue revenue based on something that Youtube enabled as a middle-man...
Exactly, that's the point. What are they? Even if nothing comes of a court case, the point is:
1. YouTube
must respond to it, legally, and truthfully;
2. An action like this is quite large (and slow!) and expensive, and is utterly impossible for a small player to bring. They
must have the support of a large organization, and IG Metall providing that support is huge.
3. Even if the case turns out meritless, YT must hear it, and respond. We will see a direct -- if court-mediated -- line into YT's upper management. There has never been such a conversation before, in the entire history of YT as far as I know. Their normal disregard for transparency and consistency will not suffice in court.
4. It's probably not wholly meritless. They could very well build the case that, some creators, in some countries, are employees. It probably wouldn't be comprehensive (would a moderately successful Aussie bloke see any change? Would a tiny (almost non-)creator like me see change?), but it would be progress nonetheless, and would open the door to further legal theorizing and strategizing.
If nothing else, wasting their time on expensive court proceedings will bleed some money off of them, of course at the expense of those calling such cases. A battle of attrition can be just as useful in legal battle as military battle. Not that such a strategy would be all that practical against a giant like Google.
Tim