Lawsuit Says Amazon Prime Video Misleads When You 'Buy' a Long-Term Streaming Rental (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0178961308
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/09/01/051247/lawsuit-says-amazon-prime-video-misleads-when-you-buy-a-long-term-streaming-rental
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/08/i-like-plaintiffs-chances-prime-video-back-in-court-over-using-the-word-buy/
"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 [2]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."
[1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/08/i-like-plaintiffs-chances-prime-video-back-in-court-over-using-the-word-buy/
[2] https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/2025-complaint.pdf
Great use case for LLM (Score:2)
Have an LLM parse these contracts written specifically to confound, obfuscate and defraud - in the tiniest legal font size - and have it surface the problematic clauses and statements.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a great use case for it, IF you could actually trust it to do the job. Already LLMs have a track record of messing up legal documents, so all you can really say is "It's better than nothing."
Really, Amazon should not lie.
Re: (Score:2)
> IF you could actually trust it to do the job. Already LLMs have a track record of messing up legal documents
Fair point. That and LLMs are utterly incapable of responding: "I don't know"
Re: (Score:2)
Except we already know that LLMs are easily confused/jailbroken/... with quite simple prompt attacks with longish sentences, no good punctuation, too many information in one single sentence.
Those prompt attacks wouldn't fool a human but would infuriate any grammar nazi^Wjustice soldier.
Now those contracts actually are prompt attacks against humans ! And they work very very well, imagine what they could do to an LLM :)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. You at least get a glimpse when it would otherwise have overwhelmed you, but ToS are written intentionally such that most people and thus also LLM which are trained on people's texts have a hard time to understand their details.
Dumbfounded (Score:3)
Why would anyone "buy" any content through these streaming media services? It's clear you have ZERO rights to continue to use that content beyond their discretion. I recall reading the fine print on DVDs, where it was clear the copy of music you have is a strictly limited license. Even then the MPAA and RIAA were going after anyone that wanted to even backup the content the customer had bought a DVD of and didn't want to risk getting scratched.
Re: (Score:2)
> Why would anyone "buy" any content through these streaming media services?
Pretty much. It's why we should pivot and "purchase" content on the high seas using gold doubloons.
Re: (Score:3)
You really need to talk more to regular people if yhou think this is "clear".
For people visiting slashdot it's obvious. For the regular person, it says buy, and they buy things on the internet all the time, why would this be different?
Greed making excuses. (Score:2)
> 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...."
I’d love to know how the lawyer will react after defending this dogshit excuse only to go home to a nagging wife bitching about how she just ‘bought” that Real Housewives season last weekaaaand it’s gone. She’s bitching because she didn’t quite catch her husbands “acknowledgement” on page 274 of a fucking EULA no one reads.
The excuse-statement above, is a middle finger to this problem. We already have bullshit “conditions” written in legalese no
Digital Property (Score:2)
If I pay money to "buy" data (like mp3s, mpeg videos, executable files, etc.) and the license/contract doesn't grant me the right to perpetual use of the data as well as the right to store it locally then I'm simply renting it.
The law ought to mandate that this be clearly indicated within the first sentence of any license or contract.
Consequences (Score:2)
Consequences: The button gets another label.
But it would be interesting, if all previous bought videos now would be really bought. Maybe Amazon could ship them on DVD when their streaming service can't provide for that.
"If plaintiff didn't read her contract ..." (Score:3)
"... the contract where, in the fine print, we claim to redefine the word 'buy' to mean something no one in their right mind would interpret the word to mean - that's on her. Also, from now on, the plaintiff is a zebra and I am the Lord of the Dance."
Re: (Score:2)
I hope Amazon loses this case. This opens the door to all sorts of abuse.
Buying is buying.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be fine with "buying" it, if when they inevitably revoked my ability to view it I got a full refund.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be fine with that. Someone would probably "buy" something because they wanted to have it available indefinitely. If they later found that their "permanent" purchase was revoked, they might no longer have the option to buy it elsewhere because it was no longer available, even if they did have that option available when they first "bought" the product from the other vendor. It's still a scam in the lying vendor's favour.
Re: (Score:2)
Another option would be that if your purchase stops working for any reason (server goes away, disc fails etc.) you are legally allowed to pirate it or crack the DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a great option. Pirating and cracking DRM still has costs. You have to go online, find a source, and hope it's not infected with malware. Moreover, you're assuming the server is owned and operated by Amazon. What if Amazon is merely selling you the right to access the server from a true supplier who has no direct contract with you?
Re: (Score:2)
The California law addresses this exact situation. To use the term "buy" to mean "license," in California they must:
> give the consumers “a clear and conspicuous statement that states in plain language that ‘buying’ or ‘purchasing’ the digital good is a license
Amazon does have sentence on their screen that says "buying this is a license." So the entire argument is about whether it is a clear and conspicuous statement or not.
The lawsuit is understandable if you skip to [1]page 4 under "FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS" [arstechnica.net].
[1] https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/2025-complaint.pdf
Re: (Score:2)
Every time anyone "buys" a movie they are buying a licence. When you buy a DVD or a VHS, that is a licence. If you want to buy the movie not a licence, you would have to pay millions of dollars.