Prime Video has found itself in hot water with users, the latter of which have now filed a class action lawsuit against the streamer over online “purchases” of movies and TV shows. This is not the first time that Prime Video has found itself under attack from users in the courts, with the platform having also been sued over the gradual introduction of ads and price changes. However, while that lawsuit was thrown out by a judge earlier this year, this latest class action could have much more success.
As per a report by The Hollywood Reporter, the class action lawsuit leveled at Prime Video “was filed in Washington federal court against Amazon over a “bait and switch” in which the company allegedly misleads consumers into believing they’ve purchased content when they’re only getting a license to watch, which can be revoked at any time.”
Essentially, this means that, while you have been told by the streamer that you can “buy” the movie or show, you really only have access to it so long as Prime Video has licence to stream it. Should the streamer lose that licence, you will lose your so-called “purchase.” Thus, the lawsuit accuses Amazon “of misrepresenting the nature of movie and TV transactions during the purchase process.” While the platform states that you “buy” the product, “hidden in a footnote on the confirmation page is fine print that says, ‘You receive a license to the video and you agree to our terms,’” the complaint reads.
Why Might This Lawsuit Be More Successful?
Following issues that came to the forefront in California after similar issues arose between gamers and Ubisoft and the latter’s release of The Crew, which resulted in the “Stop Killing Games” movement, Amazon potentially has more to worry about with this particular lawsuit. Since 2020, Amazon has “maintained that its use of the word “buy” for digital content isn’t deceptive because consumers understand their purchases are subject to licenses,” according to THR, with the platform using Webster’s Dictionary to justify what many would agree is deception. The Washington court ultimately pushed back on Amazon’s attempt to have the lawsuit dismissed.
Since then, the recent legislature has brought the lawsuit closer to success, with a California law “barring the advertisement of a transaction as a “purchase” unless it offers unrestricted ownership of the product.” Meaning that it now falls on the provider to make it crystal clear that what you’re buying is really just access to the licence in place.
In the complaint, which claims “violations of California unfair competition, false advertising and consumer legal remedies laws,” while seeking “unspecified damages, including disgorgement of profits and punitive damages for allegedly intentionally malicious conduct,” lawyer Wright Noel asserts that Amazon “does not meet the standards set by the statute for a clear and conspicuous notice that the thing they are purchasing is a revocable license to access the digital good. The warning is buried at the very bottom of the screen, in font that is considerably smaller than the other text on the screen.” Physical media enthusiasts will now need to resist the urge to stand back and admire their collections.
4
/5
This story originally appeared on Movieweb
