Class Action Lawsuit Against Amazon for Deceptive “Buy” Option on Digital Media

Amazon is facing a class action lawsuit filed in Washington federal court for allegedly misleading consumers about digital media purchases. The lawsuit contends that Amazon advertises digital movie and TV show transactions as “purchases” when they are actually limited-time licenses, leading to a “bait and switch” scenario. This issue gained prominence when gamers protested under the “Stop Killing Games” movement in 2023 after Ubisoft announced server shutdowns for The Crew, making the game inaccessible to buyers. The lawsuit cites cases like that of Lisa Reingold, who bought Bella and the Bulldogs — Volume 4 for $20.79 on Amazon Prime Video in May, only to lose access shortly after purchase. Additionally, customers who bought Downton Abbey seasons from 2010 to 2015 reported losing access by 2024, showing the impermanence of digital purchases across platforms like Amazon, Apple, and Google.

Lisa Reingold initiated the lawsuit after losing access to Bella and the Bulldogs — Volume 4, which she bought for $20.79 in May. The lawsuit argues that Amazon’s use of the term “buy” on its website creates a false expectation of ownership, deceiving consumers. Although there is fine print disclosure about buyers receiving a license subject to Amazon’s terms, the plaintiff argues that this information is not adequately highlighted to inform consumers properly.

Legal challenges to Amazon’s practices are not new. In a 2020 lawsuit alleging false advertising and unfair competition, Amazon defended its use of the term “buy” by suggesting that it signifies “rights to use” rather than permanent ownership, as stated in Webster’s Dictionary. The company also argued that its disclosures are clear enough to warn consumers about potential access loss. While one claim related to Washington’s unjust enrichment law was dismissed, the court allowed other grounds for the case to proceed.

Recent legislative changes, such as a new California law, restrict advertising digital transactions as “purchases” unless they grant unequivocal ownership. Sellers must explicitly state that buyers are acquiring a revocable license and obtain acknowledgment of this fact. The lawsuit against Amazon argues that the company’s disclosures do not meet these legal standards, as they are presented inconspicuously in small font at the bottom of the screen.

The growing consumer preference for physical media, like DVDs, reflects dissatisfaction with the transient nature of digital purchases. Physical copies offer lasting access without the concerns of licensing agreements that can result in loss of access to favorite content.

The lawsuit against Amazon alleges violations of California’s unfair competition, false advertising, and consumer legal remedies laws. It seeks unspecified damages, including disgorgement of Amazon’s profits and punitive damages for what it claims is intentional deception. As digital consumption rises, this case highlights the conflict between consumer expectations and the terms governing online transactions.