Feed: Slashdot
Feed Link: https://slashdot.org/
---

Title: Lawsuit Says Amazon Prime Video Misleads When You 'Buy' a Long-Term
Streaming Rental

Link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/09/01/05124...

"Typically when something is available to "buy," ownership of that good or
access to that service is offered in exchange for money," writes Ars
Technica. "That's not really the case, though, when it comes to digital
content." Often, streaming services like Amazon Prime Video offer customers
the options to "rent" digital content for a few days or to "buy" it. Some
might think that picking "buy" means that they can view the content
indefinitely. But these purchases are really just long-term licenses to watch
the content for as long as the streaming service has the right to distribute
it - which could be for years, months, or days after the transaction. A
lawsuit recently filed against Prime Video challenges this practice and
accuses the streaming service of misleading customers by labeling long-term
rentals as purchases. The conclusion of the case could have implications for
how streaming services frame digital content... [The plaintiff's] complaint
stands a better chance due to a California law that took effect in January
banning the selling 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." There are some instances where the law
allows digital content providers to use words like "buy." One example is if,
at the time of transaction, the seller receives acknowledgement from the
customer that the customer is receiving a license to access the digital
content; that they received a complete list of the license's conditions; and
that they know that access to the digital content may be "unilaterally
revoked...." The case is likely to hinge on whether or not fine print and
lengthy terms of use are appropriate and sufficient communication. [The
plaintiff]'s complaint acknowledges that Prime Video shows relevant fine
print below its "buy" buttons but says that the notice is "far below the 'buy
movie' button, buried at the very bottom" of the page and is not visible
until "the very last stage of the transaction," after a user has already
clicked "buy." Amazon is sure to argue that "If plaintiff didn't want to read
her contract, including the small print, that's on her," says consumer
attorney Danny Karon. But he tells Ars Technica "I like plaintiff's chances.
A normal consumer, after whom the California statute at issue is fashioned,
would consider 'buy' or 'purchase' to involve a permanent transaction, not a
mere rental... If the facts are as plaintiff alleges, Amazon's behavior would
likely constitute a breach of contract or statutory fraud."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

---
VRSS v2.1.180528