from the words-no-longer-have-meaning dept
Techdirt has long lamented how in the modern era, you don’t really “own” what you buy. That game console, smart lock, or smart refrigerator can quickly become less useful (or completely useless) with a firmware update, bankruptcy, or addition of annoying subscription paywall.
The problem is particularly bad when it comes to digital rentals. In streaming video, you often have the option to “rent” or “buy” a video. But the latter is misleading given you don’t really “own” the purchase; you’re given a license — subject to the whims of an amoral, giant corporation — that can be revoked or changed by profit-seeking executives with an eye on enshittification.
That recently appears to have gotten Amazon in trouble via a new lawsuit that alleges that Amazon is misleading consumers by misrepresenting the word “buy.” From the lawsuit:
“On its website, Defendant tells consumers the option to ‘buy’ or ‘purchase’ digital copies of these audiovisual works. But when consumers ‘buy’ digital versions of audiovisual works through Amazon’s website, they do not obtain the full bundle of sticks of rights we traditionally think of as owning property. Instead, they receive ‘non-exclusive, nontransferable, non-sublicensable, limited license’ to access the digital audiovisual work, which is maintained at Defendant’s sole discretion.”
Ars Technica notes that a similar lawsuit was filed in the same court back in 2020, but was dismissed in 2021 for lacking standing. The website notes this new lawsuit stands a slightly better chance of success thanks to a new California law that bans the the sale of a “digital good to a purchaser with the terms ‘buy,’ ‘purchase,’ or any other term which a reasonable person would understand to confer an unrestricted ownership interest in the digital good, or alongside an option for a time-limited rental.”
The fight has parallels to efforts to hold telecom giants accountable for abusing the dictionary definition of words like “unlimited,” by promising users unlimited data, then imposing restriction, caps, and overage fees to drive up profits.
Such cases generally struggle due to companies that hide such restrictions in overlong fine print, then successfully argue this constitutes an effective and clear warning for consumers. In this instance, plaintiffs have to prove that it was clearly communicated to them that they would enjoy permanent, restriction-free “ownership” in perpetuity, and were harmed when that ownership was taken away.
Filed Under: california, digital goods, lawsuit, ownership, streaming, tv, video
Companies: amazon
