Apple Must Face Lawsuit for Telling Consumers They Can "Buy" Movies, TV Shows

[dilpickle]

Summary

 

A plaintiff is suing Apple over their use of the word "buy" on their digital store. The argument is that since Apple has revoked people's access to their purchased content the word "buy" is misleading. The judge has decided that the lawsuit can go ahead because a consumer may not know that their access can be revoked.

 

 

Quotes

Quote

If possession is nine-tenths of the law, what happens when possession gets slippery?

That's a question for a federal courtroom in Sacramento, California, where Apple is facing a putative class action over the way consumers can "buy" or "rent" movies, TV shows and other content in the iTunes Store. David Andino, the lead plaintiff in this case, argues the distinction is deceptive. He alleges Apple reserves the right to terminate access to what consumers have "purchased," and in fact, has done so on numerous occasions.

 

My thoughts

I don't see the argument holding up. The right to revoke access is in every TOS that the user agrees to when they use these services. It's doubtful that a court will deny that right to any company.

 

The best case scenario I see from this case is that they have to stop using the word "buy".

 

Incidentally there is another ongoing lawsuit about a man who lost access to his entire Apple library.

 

Sources

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/apple-must-face-lawsuit-for-telling-consumers-they-can-buy-movies-tv-shows

[Orangeator]

12 minutes ago, dilpickle said:

The best case scenario I see from this case is that they have to stop using the word "buy".

For that to happen Apple would lose this suit lol. That is the premise of this case, that using "buy" is misleading. If they are forced to stop using the word buy, then they would be admitting and or the court would be ruling that "buy" is misleading. 

[dilpickle]

8 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

For that to happen Apple would lose this suit lol. That is the premise of this case, that using "buy" is misleading. If they are forced to stop using the word buy, then they would be admitting and or the court would be ruling that "buy" is misleading. 

That's why I said this is the best case scenario. This is almost exactly like the Netflix case against throttling. Netflix lost and all they had to do was disclose that they were throttling. If Apple loses I can see the same thing happening here.

[Brooksie359]

33 minutes ago, dilpickle said:

Summary

 

A plaintiff is suing Apple over their use of the word "buy" on their digital store. The argument is that since Apple has revoked people's access to their purchased content the word "buy" is misleading. The judge has decided that the lawsuit can go ahead because a consumer may not know that their access can be revoked.

 

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

I don't see the argument holding up. The right to revoke access is in every TOS that the user agrees to when they use these services. It's doubtful that a court will deny that right to any company.

 

The best case scenario I see from this case is that they have to stop using the word "buy".

 

Incidentally there is another ongoing lawsuit about a man who lost access to his entire Apple library.

 

Sources

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/apple-must-face-lawsuit-for-telling-consumers-they-can-buy-movies-tv-shows

Its called false advertising and tos doesn't protect against that. Honestly tos doesn't protect against alot of things. Laws always superseed tos. 

[dilpickle]

9 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Its called false advertising and tos doesn't protect against that. Honestly tos doesn't protect against alot of things. Laws always superseed tos. 

Exactly. So all they have to do is change their advertising. No more "buy" button. But they'll still be able to revoke your access. Hence my point about this lawsuit being mostly pointless.

[Chris Pratt]

This has been litigated to death already. I don't see it going further than summary judgment unless there's a settlement of some sort before it gets there.

 

The cases of not actually owning completely the things you "buy" are almost too numerous to name. There's all the IoT things that can be shut off at any time. You "own" it, but now it's a paperweight. There's already been cases of video games being delisted because licensing expired on musical tracks they contained. You "own" it, but there's no way to download it any more. Companies like John Deere and Keurig make products where only they can repair them or you can only use it with their licensed pods, etc. You "own" it, but you have to stay in the walled garden.

 

Ownership, in the commonly understood sense where it's yours forever and you can do whatever you want with it is a myth. Virtually everything is just licensed to you.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, dilpickle said:

Exactly. So all they have to do is change their advertising. No more "buy" button. But they'll still be able to revoke your access. Hence my point about this lawsuit being mostly pointless.

Not really as false advertising is against the law and they will get in trouble for it and likely allow for people to sue for damages. Sure it will only make them change the wording as far as the future but for the people who did get ripped off they might be able to get some money out of it. 

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, dilpickle said:

Summary

 

A plaintiff is suing Apple over their use of the word "buy" on their digital store. The argument is that since Apple has revoked people's access to their purchased content the word "buy" is misleading. The judge has decided that the lawsuit can go ahead because a consumer may not know that their access can be revoked.

 

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

I don't see the argument holding up. The right to revoke access is in every TOS that the user agrees to when they use these services. It's doubtful that a court will deny that right to any company.

 

The best case scenario I see from this case is that they have to stop using the word "buy".

 

Incidentally there is another ongoing lawsuit about a man who lost access to his entire Apple library.

 

Sources

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/apple-must-face-lawsuit-for-telling-consumers-they-can-buy-movies-tv-shows

The standard old predatory TOS problem where the word “buy” doesn’t mean what they say it does in the fine print. 
 

inactivist judges are really handy for stuff like this if you’re a business with a predatory TOS.
 

I wonder if this suit and the one just under it are the same suits. 

[lostcattears]

Soo they aren't going to fine print it into like buying a lincenses if you commit a act against the ToS all your things get revoked 

[Leviathan-]

Why is anyone fake-buying Movies from Apple or Google anyway? We have places like Vudu and Movies Anywhere if you really want to purchase movies digitally. 

[RejZoR]

Hm, I'm pretty sure Apple isn't the only one using word "Buy". And at this point, it's pretty much established you just "buy" a license to view the movies, not actually buy them. I have yet to see a single video service that says "Rent" on a button and not "Buy". Same for music. Except for those where you can download MP3/FLAC and you actually own the music then.

[dilpickle]

2 hours ago, Leviathan- said:

Why is anyone fake-buying Movies from Apple or Google anyway? We have places like Vudu and Movies Anywhere if you really want to purchase movies digitally. 

Just because you can download it doesn't mean you're "real-buying" it. You still have to watch it in their app and they can revoke access at any time. 

[TetraSky]

Never understood why/how it's even legal for these services to cut your access to stuff you've bought, at their own whim, without compensation. That's why I hope this guy wins his lawsuit and set a precedent for the digital goods that we buy to be available for complete download to us in the event that they decide to unilaterally cut off your access to it (doubt it will happen, the MAFIAA and others like them who have interest in you not owning anything, will lobby hard to push more laws and crap to prevent that from happening, with braindead politicians taking their bribe money, not read the bills and pass it... So yeah, that's why that's a thing right now, I guess).

 

To me, cutting access to stuff I've paid actual money to obtain, even if it's digital, is akin to breaking into my house and stealing straight from my shelves. Except the shelve is in a warehouse somewhere being rented from Google/Apple/Valve, etc. Just because they own the shelve, doesn't mean I don't own the content on top (the whole "you own a license and not the actual product" thing is bullshit. Even more so when the digital copy cost as much as the physical copy).

[Ydfhlx]

12 hours ago, dilpickle said:

The best case scenario I see from this case is that they have to stop using the word "buy".

That's the point - I wouldn't be surprised if competition gave money for this suit. Also, if they have to stop it means it was used wrongly, so they'll probably have to pay something

[dalekphalm]

Just pointing out that simply because something is stated inside a TOS does not make it legal.

 

TOS's cannot force you to give up your legal rights, even if it says you're agreeing to do just that. If something in a TOS violates the law, the law takes precedence.

 

This might force Apple to change the terminology they use, but ultimately, new regulations around digital sales and what rights the end consumer has need to be created to solve this problem in the long term.

[avg123]

7 hours ago, Leviathan- said:

Why is anyone fake-buying Movies from Apple or Google anyway? We have places like Vudu and Movies Anywhere if you really want to purchase movies digitally. 

how is vudu and movies anywhere different than apple and google?

[poochyena]

17 hours ago, dilpickle said:

The right to revoke access is in every TOS

ToS means nothing if the advertising conflicts with it.

[dilpickle]

This is just a question of terminology. The concept of a digital license is not going away since there is nothing illegal about it. Technically when you buy any software you are only buying a license. Up until recently there was no practical way for anyone to revoke that license. But now that everything is cloud enabled like Adobe they can do the same thing too.

[Bombastinator]

9 hours ago, Leviathan- said:

Why is anyone fake-buying Movies from Apple or Google anyway? We have places like Vudu and Movies Anywhere if you really want to purchase movies digitally. 

Not everyone is.  I believe there’s an old quote with conflicting attribution “there’s a sucker born every minute” a circus owner named Barnum is one possible attribution.  I understand  It is contested though.