Amazon Prime Movies Lawsuit: Do "Purchased" Films Disappear?

Case Overview: A class action lawsuit alleges Amazon Prime Video misled subscribers by advertising digital titles as "purchases" while only granting limited licenses, which can vanish from a user's library if licensing deals change.

Consumers Affected: U.S. consumers who paid for digital content through Amazon Prime Video and had titles removed.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

When Amazon Prime Video customers clicked the “buy” button for their favorite movies and shows, they believed they were paying for permanent ownership. Instead, some discovered that titles could vanish from their digital library if licensing deals changed.

A new lawsuit filed in Washington federal court alleges that Amazon misled subscribers by advertising digital titles as purchases while only granting limited licenses. Plaintiff Lisa Reingold, a California resident, filed the complaint on August 21 and seeks to represent a class of consumers who paid for digital content through the platform.

Lawsuit Claims "Purchases" Weren't Permanent

According to the complaint, Amazon’s checkout pages prominently use words like “buy” and “purchase,” giving customers the impression that they were acquiring lasting rights to their movies and TV shows. What they received, the filing says, was a license to view the content for as long as Amazon held distribution rights.

The lawsuit argues that this arrangement was not disclosed in a way the average consumer would notice. Instead, information about the limited license appeared in small print at the bottom of confirmation pages, a placement plaintiffs say fails to qualify as adequate disclosure.

Reingold claims she, and others like her, paid full price for titles under the assumption they would remain accessible indefinitely. By revoking access when licenses expire, Amazon allegedly deprived customers of the value they believed they were buying.

New California Law At Issue in Digital Content Dispute

The complaint points to a new California digital property rights law that took effect on January 1, 2025. Under the statute, companies selling digital goods must either obtain a clear acknowledgment from consumers that they are purchasing a license or provide a prominent disclosure during the transaction.

Plaintiffs argue that Amazon has not complied with this requirement. Instead of obtaining consumer acknowledgment or placing a conspicuous notice, Amazon allegedly buried the licensing limitation in fine print. The lawsuit claims this violates the spirit and letter of the law.

Consumer Protection Allegations and Transparency Disputes

Reingold also accuses Amazon of violating California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. These statutes are designed to prevent deceptive business practices that mislead shoppers.

The complaint says that by presenting digital titles as permanent purchases, Amazon charged higher prices than it could have if customers had understood the limited nature of the transaction. Consumers, it argues, paid premium prices for something that could vanish without warning.

The Prime Video lawsuit arrives as Amazon faces other complaints about transparency and marketing. In July, a federal judge certified a class in a case alleging that Alexa devices recorded and stored conversations without consent. 

Earlier this year, another lawsuit accused the company of misleading environmental branding on Amazon Basics paper products, claiming that eco-friendly symbols masked harmful sourcing practices. These lawsuits highlight ongoing friction between what consumers believe they are buying and what companies disclose in fine print.

Plaintiffs Say Expectations Were Misplaced

At the center of the Prime Video case is a simple consumer expectation: that the word “purchase” means ownership. Plaintiffs argue that if Amazon had made the licensing arrangement more obvious, many people would have paid less, or chosen not to buy at all.

The lawsuit asks for damages, restitution, and the return of profits Amazon earned through the alleged practice. It also seeks injunctive relief that would require Amazon to change the way it markets and sells digital movies and shows. Plaintiffs want future customers to receive prominent disclosure that “purchased” titles are conditional licenses subject to termination.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Reingold v. Amazon.com Services LLC
• Case Number: 2:25-cv-01601
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Plaintiffs' Attorney:

• Wright A. Noel (Carson Noel PLLC)
• Philip L. Fraietta and Stafan Bogdanovich (Bursor & Fisher P.A.)

Have you purchased digital movies through Amazon Prime Video? What are your thoughts on the difference between owning and licensing digital content? Share your experience below.