According to Amazon, Prime Video customers do not own the content purchased on the streaming service.
Instead, the tech giant is now arguing that Prime Video customers are actually paying for a limited license to “watch on demand indefinitely.”
Amazon notices jobs as congressional scrutiny integrates
Amanda Codell of Fairfield, California, brought Amazon back to court in April for unfair competition and false advertising, claiming the company “secretly reserves the right to stop users from using and using video content at any time,” and has done so on numerous occasions.
Codell argues that the company deceives, misleads and defrauds customers by selling content at significantly higher prices while giving customers an impression of ownership. Her claim notes that Prime video content averages per movie compared to just 99 5.99 for renting the same content. Sold at a price of 14.99.
On Monday, Amazon filed a motion seeking denial of its complaint, arguing that it “fails to make a cognitive claim under any legal principle” because it is not an injured party.
“The plaintiff claims that Defender Amazon’s Prime video service, which allows customers to purchase video content for streaming or downloading, misleads customers because it sometimes revokes or modifies the license of third-party authorized Amazon. That video content may be unavailable. ” Amazon wrote. “The complaint vaguely points to a comment online commenting about this alleged potential loss but does not identify the plaintiff by purchasing any prime video available to him. In fact, All Of prime video content the plaintiff ever purchased Remains available“
Earnings of big opportunity will appreciate Overseas AD Dr. CEOs
In addition, Amazon points out that all the Theory-Six titles Cadell purchased from January, 2011 Ca are still available to her today, and since she filed her complaint, she has made at least thirteen more separate purchases.
Although the plaintiff repeatedly alleged that “she would not have purchased it” had purchased digital content from Amazon Prime, if she had been aware of the potential loss of access to that content, she would have sold that particular item thirteen different times between April 24, 2020. Done, and September 6, 2020, ”the company said.
Click here to get the Fox Business app
Amazon also argues that it doesn’t matter if Cadell or someone else reads the nice print, because customers are still bound by it.
Amazon states, “The commercial term of a service agreement in a consumer online customer transaction is valid and enforceable when the customer has received reasonable notification of the Terms of Service.” “The plaintiff had notice [Conditions Of Use] And bound by it. “
Michael Reese, Ca Dale’s attorney, said in a statement to Fox Business that Amazon’s argument that users do not own the content they purchase is “an insult to consumers who have paid Amazon extra money and shows how Amazon misleads customers.” Is leading. “
Reese added, “We hope to represent consumers and uphold their right against Amazon for its fraud.”
Click here to read more on Fox Business