The interrogative of whether you own your digital purchases , or whether you ’re simply license that content from whatever tech heavyweight du jour hosts it , has always been a number of a shameful boxwood for consumer . lately , this lack of transparence has prompted one California user tofile a lawsuitagainst Amazon for saying customers can “ buy ” movies on Prime Video when , in actuality , the society can cut off admittance to that content at its discretion .
Yeah , in display case you did n’t know , you do n’t really own what you buy on Prime Video . Even though the serving bill this content as “ Your Video Purchases”,Prime Video ’s terms of serviceoutlines how all purchases are really just long - term renting that can disappear from your subroutine library at any prison term :
“ Purchased Digital Content will by and large continue to be available to you for download or streaming from the Service , as applicable , but may become unavailable due to possible content provider licensing restriction or for other reasons , and Amazon will not be nonresistant to you if Purchased Digital Content becomes unavailable for further download or streaming . ”
Photo: Martin Bureau (Getty Images)
None of this is made apparent unless you go digging into Prime Video ’s ToS pages , though , which lawyers for the suit ’s plaintiff , Amanda Caudel , argue is Amazon ’s attempt to “ lead astray , mislead and defraud consumers . ” Per the class legal action complaint , as first spot byTechDirt :
“ fairish consumers will bear that the use of a “ Buy ” release and the representation that their Video Content is a “ Purchase ” mean that the consumer has pay for full access to the Video Content and , like any bought product , that access code can not be revoked .
unluckily for consumers who choose the “ Buy ” option , this is delusory and false . Rather , the wretched truth is that Defendant secretly set aside the right to end the consumers ’ admittance and purpose of the Video Content at any fourth dimension , and has done so on numerous occasions , exit the consumer without the power to savour their already - bought Video Content . ”
Defendant ’s representations are misleading because they give the printing that the Video Content is purchased – i.e. the person owns it – when in fact that is not true because Defendant or others may revoke admission to the Video Content at any clip and for any cause .
And since engage film for 30 days also be significantly less than purchasing it on Prime Video , usually around $ 5 liken to $ 14.99 - 19.99 , the lawsuit argues that Amazon uses this deceptive note to make profit at the expense of consumers . Particularly since there ’s no user correspondence that pops up upon purchase to explain to client that they wo n’t actually own the TV content after shoot “ Buy ” . There ’s no such disclaimer on the picture show ’s purchase Thomas Nelson Page either .
https://gizmodo.com/apple-finally-lets-you-buy-amazon-prime-movies-on-iphon-1842644214
As part of their bid to turn this issue into a class - action lawsuit , Caudel ’s lawyers claim that Amazon ’s action violate several California laws , including the state ’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and legislation block false advertizing and unfair competition . Amazon did not at once respond to Gizmodo ’s head regarding the case and whether it plans to make this insurance policy more unmistakable during Prime Video ’s purchasing process .
Though I fully sympathize with the complainant in this one , I ’ll be surprised to see if this lawsuit terminate up lay down any waves . Amazon’slack of a true “ Buy ” option for video contenthas beena well - have intercourse secretfor the good part of a decade at this point , even as consumers bear on to be ( intelligibly ) blindside by that cognition .
AmazonDigital DownloadsPrime Video
Daily Newsletter
Get the best technical school , science , and culture news in your inbox daily .
news show from the future , deliver to your present .
You May Also Like
