Amazon says customers who buy streaming content on its Prime Video service are actually paying for an extended rental and should not be surprised if the company makes it unavailable at a later time due to third-party rights’ holders.
The Seattle-based retailer made the claim in a court filing against a customer who sued the company for false advertising.
Amanda Caudel of Fairfield, California, took Amazon to court in April after she claimed that streaming content that customers pay for could be made unavailable by the company at a later date.
Caudel accused Amazon of false advertising and unfair competition.
She claimed that the company ‘secretly reserves the right’ to cut off customers’ access to streaming content that is purchased on its Prime Video service.
Amazon says customers who pay for digital streaming content do not own it but are instead granted a ‘limited license’ that could be revoked at a later time due to third-party rights’ holders
She filed the legal action in April on behalf of herself and other California residents who bought streaming content on Prime Video from April 2016 to the present.
The Seattle-based retailer filed a rebuttal in Sacramento federal court on Monday in response to the lawsuit.
Amazon on Monday argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because customers who buy streaming content on Prime Video are actually purchasing a limited license for ‘on-demand viewing over an indefinite period of time.’
The company made the claim in a court filing on Monday in response to a lawsuit brought by a California woman. Amanda Caudel sued Amazon for false advertising after she said digital content she paid for on Prime Video suddenly became unavailable
The company adds: ‘Digital Content is offered to customers under a limited license, in part, because some of that Content is owned by third-parties who ultimately control its access and availability.’
Amazon also says that Caudel lacks standing to sue because she isn’t an injured party.
Since filing her lawsuit, Caudel has purchased 13 titles on Amazon Prime Video, according to the company.
‘Plaintiff claims that Defendant Amazon’s Prime Video service, which allows consumers to purchase video content for streaming or download, misleads consumers because sometimes that video content might later become unavailable if a third-party rights’ holder revokes or modifies Amazon’s license,’ Amazon writes in its legal motion.
‘The Complaint points vaguely to online commentary about this alleged potential harm but does not identify any Prime Video purchase unavailable to Plaintiff herself.
‘In fact, all of the Prime Video content that Plaintiff has ever purchased remains available.’
‘An individual does not need to read an agreement in order to be bound by it,’ Amazon argues in its legal filing.
‘A merchant term of service agreement in an online consumer transaction is valid and enforceable when the consumer had reasonable notice of the terms of service.’
Source: Daily Mail |World News