A little known fact about movie and TV show “purchases” online: What’s being bought isn’t actually ownership of the title but rather a limited-time license for viewing access. Consider the $4.99 director’s cut of Alien on Amazon Prime Video. Cheap, right? But if the tech giant loses the rights to that version, the movie can be replaced with a different cut, like the one for theaters. And if Amazon loses the rights to the film altogether, it’ll completely disappear from the viewer’s library.
So should Amazon be able to say a consumer is “buying” that movie? Some people don’t think so, and they’ve turned to court.
On Friday, a proposed class action 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.
The issue came to the forefront at the California legislature in 2023 when gamers discovered that their access to The Crew would be cut off once Ubisoft shut down servers for the game. After, the “Stop Killing Games” movement was born to stop publishers from destroying titles consumers had already bought.
The way in which digital transactions are structured, the lack of transparency around them and the streaming landscape is partly why physical media is kind-of-sort-of cool again. DVDs offer the ability, now and forever, to bypass the complicated web of licenses that leave fans unable to access their favorite titles.
The lawsuit accuses Amazon, which didn’t respond to a request for comment, of misrepresenting the nature of movie and TV transactions during the purchase process. On its website and platform, the company tells consumers they can “buy” a movie. But 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 says.
The issue is already before a court. In a 2020 lawsuit alleging unfair competition and false advertising over the practice, Amazon maintained that its use of the word “buy” for digital content isn’t deceptive because consumers understand their purchases are subject to licenses. Quoting Webster’s Dictionary, it said that the term means “rights to the use or services of payment” rather than perpetual ownership and that its disclosures properly warn people that they may lose access. The court ultimately rebuffed Amazon’s bid to dismiss the lawsuit outside of a claim alleging a violation of Washington’s unjust enrichment law.
Recent legislative changes may make the lawsuit even more viable. Earlier this year, a California law went into effect barring the advertisement of a transaction as a “purchase” unless it offers unrestricted ownership of the product. Under the statute, sellers must obtain acknowledgement that buyers are aware they’re actually buying a limited license, in this case movies or TV shows, that can be revoked.
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,” writes Wright Noel, a lawyer for consumers looking to sue the company, in the complaint. “The warning is buried at the very bottom of the screen, in font that is considerably smaller than the other text on the screen
The lawsuit claims violations of California unfair competition, false advertising and consumer legal remedies laws. It seeks unspecified damages, including disgorgement of profits and punitive damages for allegedly intentionally malicious conduct.