Yes in theory posting review on youtube can and will violate EULA. But this is largely pointless from a legal point - EULA is not a law and never understood this way. EULA is a license agreement between two parties: a licensor and licensee.
So only the licensor can wave the LA around and demand the licensee to stop doing whatever he is doing "or else", but why he would in this case. There is no benefit to the licensor and he is the one who wrote the LA.
People would often throw terms of legality and non legality - but in case of license agreement there is no such thing until one of the parties decide to make it so (going to court and the court rules in their favor - then it became legal - otherwise it is just agreement between two equal parties).
This is vastly different from issues where state/province laws are written (like copyright law). In the case of license agreement this is written by one or both parties. And they can literally write anything in it and demand any damages but it will never go that way in court.
I can put in LA that you must give me your first born for using my libraries but never actually enforce it because it is stupid and I don't even want your new born. Yep you may be violating the terms of agreement but it is as good as nothing until I really put an effort to it and start demanding it. And then the court will of course rule that I am insane and I need to remove that from any further agreement and that will be it. Except I will spend huge amount of money to realize I am insane.
That is why license agreement violations seldom go to court unless real big money are in stake. In case of libraries that would mean the developer suing one of his paying customer. How likely is this going to be? And the fee a court would award in the developer favor will be just a peanut or $50 bucks, remove offending work and say you are sorry.
You have to understand that in agreement none of the parties actually break the law - no matter what they do. They only break their agreement. No court in the world will in such case ever rule to the licensee (little Johny) to pay the attorney and legal fees for the licensor. So the developer is on the hook for legal fees regardless if he wins or loose. But in fact, if the court feels that the developer has no grounds for the lawsuit (a youtube video review would be perfect example) and wastes court time it may actually force the developer to pay the legal fees for the little Johny.