Amazon Lawsuit: Do You Really Own Digital Movies?
When you click “buy” on a digital movie or TV show, do you really own it? A new class action lawsuit against Amazon suggests the answer is no—and that the retail giant may have been misleading consumers about what they’re actually purchasing. Filed in August 2025, the lawsuit alleges Amazon violated California’s Digital Property Rights Transparency Law by selling revocable licenses while using language that implies permanent ownership.
What Amazon Allegedly Did Wrong
The complaint centers on a fundamental disconnect between what consumers think they’re buying and what they actually receive. When shoppers browse Amazon Prime Video’s digital storefront, they encounter buttons labeled “Buy” and “Purchase”—terms that traditionally convey permanent ownership. However, according to the lawsuit, what customers actually receive is far more limited.
The legal filing describes how Amazon’s purchase process creates the illusion of ownership. When a consumer selects a movie or TV show, they’re presented with prominent “Buy” buttons and pricing information. Only at the very end of the checkout process—buried in small text at the bottom of the confirmation screen—does a disclaimer appear stating that buyers are receiving only a license to access the content.
The critical distinction is this: unlike purchasing a physical DVD that you can keep on your shelf indefinitely, Amazon’s digital purchases come with significant restrictions. The company’s Terms of Use grant only a “non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, limited license” to access digital content. This means:
- Amazon can revoke access to content if the company loses distribution rights
- The content cannot be transferred, copied, or lent to others
- Movies or TV shows can disappear from your library entirely
- Different versions of content (such as theatrical cuts versus director’s cuts) can be substituted without notice
The lawsuit provides a concrete example: if you “buy” Django Unchained on Amazon Prime Video and the company later loses rights to the Director’s Cut, Amazon might replace it with the theatrical version—which has 30 minutes of footage removed—or remove it from your library altogether. This would never happen with a physical DVD purchase.
California’s New Digital Property Rights Law
The lawsuit is based on California Business & Professions Code Section 17500.6, a groundbreaking law that took effect January 1, 2025. This legislation was passed in direct response to consumer confusion about digital ownership rights, particularly after high-profile incidents where gamers lost access to purchased content.
The law was inspired by the 2023-2024 controversy surrounding The Crew, a video game published by Ubisoft. When the company shut down the game’s servers, millions of consumers who thought they had purchased the game discovered they had merely licensed access to it—access that could be revoked at the company’s discretion. The resulting outcry sparked the “Stop Killing Games” consumer movement and caught the attention of California lawmakers.
The California legislature recognized a fundamental problem: digital goods are often sold at prices comparable to physical media, yet consumers don’t receive the same ownership rights. As retailers increasingly pivot away from physical media, the need for transparency becomes more critical.
The new law establishes clear requirements for companies selling digital goods. Specifically, it prohibits sellers from using terms like “buy” or “purchase” unless they either:
- Obtain affirmative acknowledgment from the purchaser confirming they understand they’re receiving a license, including a complete list of restrictions and the fact that access may be revoked, OR
- Provide clear and conspicuous notice in plain language that “buying” or “purchasing” the digital good is actually a license, with an accessible link to full terms and conditions
The law defines “clear and conspicuous” as notice that “clearly calls attention to the language, such as in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks.”
According to the complaint, Amazon’s disclosure practices fail both tests. The company doesn’t require customers to affirmatively acknowledge the limited nature of their purchase
