Brazilian Consumer Protection Agency question Netflix Password Sharing scheme.

[igormp]

51 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I just think it's important that people don't just jump on the Netflix Hate Bandwagon - a consumer protection agency investigating a company does not inherently mean they're guilty. Maybe they are - let's wait for the investigation to release it's findings?

Yup, agreed on that, a possibility is that absolutely nothing happens too. Still, the investigation is valid nonetheless.

53 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Do you have any source to back this up?

Sure, two links that I found:

https://flixpatrol.com/streaming-service/netflix/subscribers/by-value/#list

https://www.comparitech.com/tv-streaming/netflix-subscribers/

55 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

This source here:

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/netflix-statistics/

 

Indicates that Latin America (which includes Brazil) is certainly a large market, but it's not their largest. US/Canada and Europe both blow Latin America away in terms of total revenue and revenue per user.

 

US/Canada actually has slightly less subscribers than Europe - both of which are about double Latin America.

The problem there is the grouping. US is the largest market whereas Canada is almost insignificant in comparison, but when you sum up US+CA+MX you get a really large number.

Same goes for EMEA, each country has less subscribers than Brazil, but their sum goes way past the one of SA because the other countries apart from Brazil in SA aren't that big.

 

Remove Brazil and LATAM numbers will be close to nothing  

 

47 minutes ago, manikyath said:

i considered googling it, i considered using a broader term, but i concluded that it would be the same difference, and if that'd tick them off that's their problem.

I usually see Americans being bad at geography (which is also a classic meme) and that's what I hinted at with irony. Your English is pretty good, but that was not the point.

[kumicota]

On 5/31/2023 at 12:14 PM, manikyath said:

business that people start finding holes in their wording, and twist their own mind to believe the unlikely so it becomes a matter of false advertising....

A few things before the info dump. First, I'm brazilian, second I don't have any strong opnion about the password sharing issue.

 

I think the main thing on this thread is the lack of understand of brazilians consumer protection laws. So here it goes a bit about the netflix case.

 

On Brazilian advertising laws the false advertising can fall under a lot of categories, one of them is bad faith advertising which is what Netflix is falling under. I don't know how to proper explain bad faith advertising but in the netflix case would be not outright lying in ads but ads that can lead to ambiguity or misinterpretation and brazilian laws are very clear about that.

 

While advertisers have some leeway regarding to that, the companies and ads needs to cover their asses, like for example in Toothpaste ads that says 9 in 10 dentists reccomends toothpaste X but then you look in the fine-print and you see that the research was very biased. This is the Netflix problem, by the law to cover their asses they have to cover it on the advertising itself by things like fineprint, * on the misleading text and other things. They can't put a misleading text on a ad, while saying otherwise in the EULA, because the consumer laws consider this to be a bad faith advertising, so that's why they're going after netflix, their "Watch anywhere, anytime" ads doesn't state anything about the password sharing rules, households or time-limit.

[kpluck]

On 5/28/2023 at 12:28 AM, igormp said:

Netflix has to properly explain how they'll deal with those edge cases without causing any issues to those users.

They already have.

 

-kp

[IkeaGnome]

As if Netflix already wasn't expensive enough. I'd now have to pay for 3 households. Work, home and other home. Currently due to living and work situation I work spend two weeks at home here in the States, 2 weeks at work, 2 weeks at home in a different country. 

[igormp]

29 minutes ago, kpluck said:

They already have.

 

-kp

Any sources on that? All I see is that other states have also started investigating netflix too (OP's was about PR, now SP, RJ and SC have joined the saga).

[Mark Kaine]

On 6/2/2023 at 11:15 PM, IkeaGnome said:

As if Netflix already wasn't expensive enough. I'd now have to pay for 3 households. Work, home and other home. Currently due to living and work situation I work spend two weeks at home here in the States, 2 weeks at work, 2 weeks at home in a different country. 

I'll be honest, i don't really understand the appeal,  and i also don't really know the current situation in other countries,  but here we can still watch over satellite for absolutely *free* , other countries have even much better offerings (again for free) over satellite,  and i believe objectively these offerings aren't any better or worse than "netflix", so Im just curious if that wouldn't be a viable alternative ?(since idk the situation in good old America ig)

[Brooksie359]

On 6/1/2023 at 8:51 PM, kumicota said:

A few things before the info dump. First, I'm brazilian, second I don't have any strong opnion about the password sharing issue.

 

I think the main thing on this thread is the lack of understand of brazilians consumer protection laws. So here it goes a bit about the netflix case.

 

On Brazilian advertising laws the false advertising can fall under a lot of categories, one of them is bad faith advertising which is what Netflix is falling under. I don't know how to proper explain bad faith advertising but in the netflix case would be not outright lying in ads but ads that can lead to ambiguity or misinterpretation and brazilian laws are very clear about that.

 

While advertisers have some leeway regarding to that, the companies and ads needs to cover their asses, like for example in Toothpaste ads that says 9 in 10 dentists reccomends toothpaste X but then you look in the fine-print and you see that the research was very biased. This is the Netflix problem, by the law to cover their asses they have to cover it on the advertising itself by things like fineprint, * on the misleading text and other things. They can't put a misleading text on a ad, while saying otherwise in the EULA, because the consumer laws consider this to be a bad faith advertising, so that's why they're going after netflix, their "Watch anywhere, anytime" ads doesn't state anything about the password sharing rules, households or time-limit.

As far as I am aware it's the same in the US. You can't mislead consumers in an advertisement and then say you technically didn't lie as misleading ads are still considered false advertising regardless. I wouldn't be surprised if they get in trouble in the US as well which makes sense as they are advertising something that would lead someone to believe there are no restrictions on where and when they can watch netflix when there clearly is based on the new password sharing rules.