Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
A customer has filed a class action lawsuit against Amazon over claims that the company revokes access to videos purchased through its video streaming service.
The Amazon video class action lawsuit was filed by California resident Amanda Caudel who says she purchased a video through Amazon, believing that she would have unlimited access to it. Caudel claims that she believed this because of advertisements and wording used by Amazon.
However, Caudel argues that Amazon could take away her access to purchased videos at any time, contrary to advertisements.
The Amazon class action lawsuit notes that the online retailer offers customers the opportunity to either rent or buy a video through its streaming service.
Allegedly, Amazon advertises that customers who rent a video will have access to the video for a limited amount of time and charges a lower price for this service.
Customers reportedly have the additional option to buy a video for a higher price, with the assumption that they will have unlimited access to the video.
According to Caudel, Amazon advertises this distinction and uses the promise of unlimited access to entice customers into purchasing, as opposed to just renting, a video for a higher price.
However, in reality, Amazon reserves the right to terminate the customer’s access to and use of the video, according to Caudel. She says that the company has done this numerous times.
The plaintiff claims that Amazon misleads customers about the reality of what it means to “purchase” a video through the site. Allegedly, the company is aware that customers will believe that purchasing a video gives them unlimited access to it because that is the usual understanding of the word “buy.”
In her words, Amazon uses “cognitive shortcuts made at the point-of-sale” to effectively trick customers into thinking that they will have unlimited access to the videos. These shortcuts include the use of the words “rent” and “buy” as well as the increased price of the purchased video content, says Caudel.
The Amazon video class action lawsuit states that other customers have had their access to videos revoked, citing a customer’s account posted on reddit. Though that experience was shared within the last year, Caudel says that this experience is not unique or new.
Allegedly, Amazon has made a practice of misleading customers in this way for almost a decade.
Caudel states that the company is aware the customers have been misled by the wording around video purchases but has taken no steps to clarify the confusion.
The plaintiff says that she and other customers were financially injured by Amazon’s practice of using misleading wording around video access.
Arguing the cost of this deception to consumers, the Amazon videos class action lawsuit states that videos are offered for purchase at an average price of $14.99 per movie, whereas they are offered for rent at an average price of $5.99.
Caudel argues that she and other customers might not have purchased access to videos, or would not have paid as much for them, if they had known that their access to the videos could be revoked at any time.
She also says that Amazon was unjustly enriched by its sale of the videos and pricing around them, because if Amazon had not engaged in the deceptive sales practices, the company would not have made as much money as it did from these sales.
The plaintiff alleges that Amazon violated the California False Advertising Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act by engaging in “unfair methods of competition,” as well as “unfair or deceptive practices” that resulted in the lease or sale of goods.
Caudel says that the company makes a practice of “representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have,” which is prohibited by the law.
The plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of herself and all other California customers who purchased video content since April 25, 2016.
In addition to seeking compensation for financial injury, Caudel also seeks an injunction barring Amazon from using these practices in the future. She says that the company will continue to engage in this deceptive practice unless the court takes action to prohibit these practices.
Have you purchased video content from Amazon assuming that you would retain access? Share your story in the comment section below.
Caudel is represented by Michael R. Reese, Carlos F. Ramirez, and George V. Granade of Reese LLP; and by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates PC.
The Amazon Video Purchase Class Action Lawsuit is Amanda Caudel v. Amazon.com Inc., Case No. 2:20-at-00409, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
331 thoughts onAmazon Class Action Says Consumers Don’t Actually Own Purchased Videos
Add me
I purchased video and movies on Amazon and same thing happened me please add me
Knew too good to be true and even tried to tell my husband but of course I was wrong. I knew it. Then should say renting if we truly don’t own it. Misrepresented, take the money from the unknowing people.
This has happened as well for me in the past and this misinformation for having prime, but still needing to pay for some movies
This is for “purchased movies” not prime. Amazon has advertised in the past that purchased movies would be owned and stored in a personal library and then revoked access requiring a second purchase to own until the next revocation period.
I would think that ALL streaming services AND the movie studios are guilty of this – why? Because I have almost all paid streaming services and while most link up and show the same movies I have purchased – there are large discrepancies in the total amounts. VuDu-(recently joined FandangoNow), Movies Anywhere, Xfinity Stream, Amazon Prime, Paramount+ to name a few…Going back to my purchase histories – I see the purchases, however I cannot watch certain movies. Only way is to “re-purchase” or rent…No way – I have tens of THOUSANDS of Dollars invested and this studio collusion with the streaming services needs to be brought into the light and stopped.
Add me
Same for me. I have purchased over 500 movies and some have disappeared. This is very deceptive. I would like to be added as well.
Same problem. I have purchased at least 50 movies if not more thinking that since it’s an online platform they will available anytime in my account, regardless where I am. It turned out it’s not!! When I complain Amazon fraudulent explanation was “it’s a problem on my devices!” I’m so eager to add my name in such a CAction!
I also noticed that even some Prime movies (The Godfather) are for extra charge, when Amazon sold the notion that if you have Prime you have limited access to all the prime stuff.
Such a scam! Make me getting video players and the real dvd’s!!
I have purchased approximately 74 movies and TV shows under the guise that I own them which is what was displayed when I made the purchases. I find out now after reading an article that I do not. This was never disclosed whenever I made any purchases. This is false advertising, misleading and deceptive practices especially because they charge full price as if purchasing a DVD disc.