In a new collective appeal offered against Amazon [via The Hollywood Reporter]The company was accused of “Bait and Switch” (a type of fraudulent activity) on the privileged video. This means that they would have mistaken consumers by believing that they have bought content when they only get a license to look at, which can be revoked at any time if Amazon loses the rights of a title.
The potential trial affirms: “The violations of the unfair competition from California, false advertisements and laws on the legal appeals of consumers. Taken in Washington Federal runs on August 22, 2025, the proposal affirms that Amazon” distorts the nature of cinematographic and televised transactions during the purchasing process “.
In the event that it is not clear, let’s take the digital version not approved of Conclave I “bought” on a first -rate video so that my parents did not miss the media threshing this year at the Oscar. I have a digital copy, but if the Prime Video license agreements should change, the same goes for the version of Conclave I have access to. If Amazon no longer had the rights to the title, my parents would lose the film.
As the complaint points out, “you receive a video license and you accept our conditions”, which means that what you really get to separate from your money is written in the small impression. But should Prime Video be allowed to say to subscribers that they have “bought” a film, and what does that mean for long-term American users?
Before going further, let’s not forget that this is not the first trial of this kind video. In 2020, a separate trial allegedly alleged “unfair competition and false publicity on practice”. Although Amazon has not yet publicly commented on the new collective appeal, he said in 2020 that the use of the word “buy” is not misleading for subscribers because consumers already understand that their purchases are subjective to license agreements. Five years later, and I would say that this is probably not the case.
In 2023, a Californian legislature again put the problem in the foreground. The players found that their access The crew Would be arrested after Ubisoft closed the game servers, inspiring the movement `Stop Killing Games ” which targeted publishers destroying consumption titles previously purchased.
However, changes to the Californian legislature this year that works to the advantage of our new trial. Essentially, a state law has prohibited the use of the word “purchase” in a transaction unless “it offers a property without restriction of the product”. Obviously, our little video impression does not correspond to this, and Amazon can hardly afford to lose a share of profit as huge as California (if it was its own separate country, California would be the fourth economy of the world).
We do not yet know what it means for banners with a privileged video subscription to a wider level, but for me, it is an incredibly brutal reminder that we must continue to invest in the physical media as much as possible. Yes, it is more expensive than paying flat fees every month for all the content you may wish. But it’s like going out together: if you become more intentional in what you invest, the results are for life.
If you have physical copies of movies and television shows you like, you can never separate from them, and this is the only way to guarantee the safety of what we buy. It may be time for the best streaming services to come back to the good old days to send us records in the post to watch and come back when we finished with them, just as Netflix did it in the late 2000s.
