In a growing controversy over digital media purchases, a proposed class action lawsuit filed on Friday in Washington federal court accuses Amazon of misleading consumers by advertising digital movie and TV show transactions as “purchases” when they are, in fact, limited-time licenses. The lawsuit claims that Amazon’s practices constitute a “bait and switch,” leaving buyers unaware that their access to titles like the director’s cut of Alien or Bella and the Bulldogs can vanish if the company loses licensing rights according to a report form The Hollywood Reporter.
The issue gained traction in 2023 when gamers rallied under the “Stop Killing Games” movement after Ubisoft announced it would shut down servers for The Crew, rendering the game inaccessible to those who had purchased it. Similarly, the lawsuit highlights cases like that of plaintiff Lisa Reingold, who paid $20.79 for Bella and the Bulldogs — Volume 4 on Amazon Prime Video in May, only to lose access shortly after. Consumers who bought Downton Abbey seasons between 2010 and 2015 have also reported losing access by 2024, underscoring the impermanence of digital purchases across platforms like Amazon, Apple, and Google.
The lawsuit was initiated by Lisa Reingold, who purchased Bella and the Bulldogs — Volume 4 for $20.79 in May but soon lost access to the show. The complaint argues that Amazon’s website and platform prominently use the term “buy” during the purchase process, creating an expectation of ownership. However, a footnote buried in fine print on the confirmation page reveals that buyers receive only a license subject to Amazon’s terms, which allow the company to revoke access at any time. The plaintiff contends this disclosure is neither clear nor conspicuous, failing to adequately inform consumers.
This isn’t the first legal challenge to Amazon’s practices. In a 2020 lawsuit alleging false advertising and unfair competition, Amazon argued that its use of “buy” is not deceptive, citing Webster’s Dictionary to claim the term implies “rights to use” rather than permanent ownership. The company also maintained that its disclosures sufficiently warn consumers of potential access loss. While the court dismissed one claim related to Washington’s unjust enrichment law, it allowed the case to proceed on other grounds.
Recent legislative changes bolster the plaintiffs’ case. A new California law, effective earlier this year, prohibits advertising digital transactions as “purchases” unless they grant unrestricted ownership. Sellers must clearly disclose that buyers are acquiring a revocable license and obtain acknowledgment of this fact. The lawsuit claims Amazon’s disclosures—presented in small font at the bottom of the screen—fall short of the law’s requirements.
The resurgence of physical media, like DVDs, reflects growing consumer frustration with the precarious nature of digital purchases. Unlike streaming or digital licenses, physical copies offer permanent access, free from the complexities of licensing agreements that can leave fans unable to watch their favorite titles.
The lawsuit alleges violations of California’s unfair competition, false advertising, and consumer legal remedies laws. It seeks unspecified damages, including disgorgement of Amazon’s profits and punitive damages for what it describes as intentionally misleading conduct. As digital consumption continues to dominate, the case highlights a growing tension between consumer expectations and the fine print governing online transactions.
Please follow us on Facebook and X for more news, tips, and reviews. Need cord cutting tech support? Join our Cord Cutting Tech Support Facebook Group for help. You can find Luke on X HERE.