A seismic legal battle is brewing for tech behemoth Amazon, as a landmark £500 million-plus collective action lawsuit has been filed against its Prime Video service in the UK. The claim alleges the platform systematically misled customers into believing they were permanently purchasing digital movies, when in reality they were only ever renting them with long-term access.
The case, brought forward by renowned consumer rights advocate Fiona Scolding KC on behalf of millions of affected Amazon customers, argues that the platform's interface was deliberately ambiguous. The suit centres on the use of the word "Buy" and the prominent placement of a shopping cart icon next to film listings, which claimants say created a "false sense of ownership".
The Core of the Consumer Dispute
According to the claim, customers who clicked "Buy" for a film priced between £4.99 and £15.99 were not made aware that their access was contingent on Amazon's continued licensing agreements with studios. The lawsuit argues that key information was buried in dense terms and conditions, a practice known as "digital dark patterns".
"People thought they were building a digital library, much like a DVD collection, but they were actually building a library of long-term rentals," stated Scolding. The crux of the issue is that Amazon retains the right to remove access to a purchased film if its licensing deal expires, a fact the lawsuit claims was not made sufficiently clear at the point of sale.
Potential Ramifications and Amazon's Stance
The opt-out claim, filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal, could see any UK-based Amazon Prime customer who made a "Buy" purchase since October 2016 automatically eligible for compensation if successful. Payouts are estimated to range from tens to hundreds of pounds per person.
An Amazon spokesperson has publicly refuted the claim, stating: "We are confident that our practices are clear and fair for customers. The Prime Video buying experience makes it clear that customers are making a digital purchase for long-term viewing access to a title, subject to the terms of our Digital Services Agreement."
This case shines a harsh light on the lack of clear regulation governing digital content ownership and could set a crucial precedent for the entire streaming industry, forcing platforms to be radically more transparent about what consumers are actually paying for.
