When an Amazon Prime Video user purchases content on the platform, they are actually paying a limited license for “indefinite on-demand viewing” and are notified of this in the terms of service. ‘company. This is the company’s argument as to why a lawsuit over future hypothetical content removals should be dismissed.
In April, Amanda Caudel sued Amazon for unfair competition and false advertising. She claims the company “secretly reserves the right” to terminate consumer access to content purchased through its Prime Video service. She filed her putative class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and all California residents who purchased video content from the service from April 25, 2016 to today.
On Monday, Amazon filed a motion to dismiss her complaint, arguing she had no standing because she had not been injured – and noting that she had purchased 13 titles on Prime since filing his complaint.
“The plaintiff asserts that the defendant Amazon’s Prime Video service, which allows consumers to purchase video content for streaming or download, misleads consumers because sometimes that video content may later become unavailable if a third party owner of the rights revokes or modifies Amazon’s license, ”the lawyer wrote. David Biderman in the motion, which is posted below. “The complaint loosely refers to online comments about this alleged potential harm, but does not identify any Prime Video purchases unavailable to the complainant herself. In reality, all Prime Video content that the requester has already purchased remains available. “
Additionally, according to Amazon, the site’s required user agreements explain that some content may become unavailable at a later date.
“The most relevant agreement here – the Prime Video Terms of Service – is presented to consumers every time they purchase digital content from Amazon Prime Video,” Biderman writes. “These Terms of Service expressly state that purchasers are only granted a limited license to view video content and that purchased content may become unavailable due to vendor license restriction or other reasons.”
Amazon maintains that it doesn’t matter that Caudel actually bothered to read the fine print.
“An individual does not need to read an agreement to be bound by it,” Biderman writes. “A merchant’s terms of service agreement in an online consumer transaction is valid and enforceable when the consumer has received reasonable notice of the terms of service. “