The Amazon digital movie ownership lawsuit is a proposed class action, Reingold v. Amazon.com Services LLC, filed in August 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. It accuses Amazon of misleading Prime Video customers who click “Buy” on a movie or TV show, alleging that what looks like a purchase is actually a revocable license Amazon can withdraw whenever it loses the underlying content rights. The suit is built on a new California law, effective January 1, 2025, that requires sellers of digital goods to clearly disclose when a “purchase” is really a license.
What the Complaint Alleges
Named plaintiff Lisa Reingold says she paid $17.79 in May 2025 for a digital copy of Bella and the Bulldogs — Volume 4.{1ClassAction.org. Reingold v. Amazon.com Services LLC Complaint} Her complaint uses that transaction to illustrate a broader claim: Amazon displays a “Buy” button and uses the word “purchase” throughout checkout, which the suit says implies permanent, unrestricted ownership of the content.{2The Hollywood Reporter. Prime Video Lawsuit Over Movie License Ownership} What customers actually receive, according to the complaint, is a limited license Amazon can revoke at any time.
The suit calls this a “bait and switch.” It alleges the only warning about the license-only nature of the sale appears in a footnote on the purchase confirmation page, in text “considerably smaller than the other text on the screen,” reading: “You receive a license to the video and you agree to our terms.”{2The Hollywood Reporter. Prime Video Lawsuit Over Movie License Ownership} Amazon never asks buyers to affirmatively acknowledge that they are getting a revocable license rather than ownership, the complaint says.
The complaint contrasts the digital transaction with physical media. Someone who buys a DVD can keep it, lend it, or resell it. Amazon’s terms grant only a “non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, limited license” and bar copying, transferring, or displaying the content.{3ClassAction.org. Amazon Prime Video Lawsuit Claims Customers Who Buy Content Are Misled About Ownership Rights} When Amazon loses rights to a title, the content disappears from the buyer’s library and no refund is offered. The suit points to customers who bought seasons of Downton Abbey between 2010 and 2015 and had lost access by 2024.{2The Hollywood Reporter. Prime Video Lawsuit Over Movie License Ownership}
What Amazon’s Terms Actually Promise
Amazon’s Prime Video Terms of Use, last updated in May 2025, grant a “non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable, limited license” to view purchased content “for personal, non-commercial, private use” over an “indefinite period of time,” subject to Amazon’s agreement and usage rules.{} The same terms warn that purchased content “may become unavailable due to potential content provider licensing restrictions or for other reasons,” and that Amazon “will not be liable” when that occurs.{4Amazon. Amazon Prime Video Terms of Use}
Amazon’s general Conditions of Use add that the license terminates if the user violates the terms, and that “all rights not expressly granted” are reserved by Amazon or its content providers.{5Amazon. Amazon Conditions of Use} The lawsuit does not dispute that these terms exist. It argues they are not meaningfully communicated at the moment a customer clicks “Buy.”
The California Law at the Center of the Case
The complaint relies heavily on California’s Digital Property Rights Transparency Law, Assembly Bill 2426, which took effect January 1, 2025. The statute added Business and Professions Code section 17500.6 to California’s False Advertising Law, making it unlawful to use terms like “buy” or “purchase” for digital goods unless the seller either obtains affirmative acknowledgment from the buyer that the transaction is a revocable license, or provides a “clear and conspicuous” disclosure of that fact before the sale is complete.{6Greenberg Traurig. AB 2426: New California Law Requires Clear Licensing Disclosures for Digital Goods} The disclosure has to appear separately from other terms of service, and violations carry penalties of up to $2,500 each.{7Thompson Coburn. California Expands False Advertising Law to Require Express Licensing Disclosures in Sales of Digital Goods}
Reingold’s complaint says Amazon’s small-font footnote fails both prongs of the statute: it is not “clear and conspicuous,” and Amazon does not seek affirmative acknowledgment. The suit also alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, its broader False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.{8Top Class Actions. Amazon Prime Customers Sue, Say Purchased Movies Can Disappear}
Who’s in the Class and What the Suit Seeks
The proposed class covers all individuals in California who have purchased a digital audiovisual work from Amazon.{} The plaintiff is seeking a jury trial, declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, restitution, and disgorgement of profits, with amounts to be determined at trial.{3ClassAction.org. Amazon Prime Video Lawsuit Claims Customers Who Buy Content Are Misled About Ownership Rights} The class has not been certified. No settlement exists and no claim form is available.
Where the Case Stands
Reingold filed the complaint on August 21, 2025 in the Western District of Washington, case number 2:25-cv-01601, assigned to Judge Ricardo S. Martinez.{8Top Class Actions. Amazon Prime Customers Sue, Say Purchased Movies Can Disappear} Amazon moved to dismiss on November 21, 2025, arguing the plaintiff failed to state a claim. Reingold responded on January 2, 2026, and Amazon replied on January 30, 2026.{} The court stayed initial discovery deadlines in early February 2026, and the motion to dismiss remains pending.{9PACER Monitor. Reingold v. Amazon.com Services LLC}
Not the First “Buy Button” Lawsuit
A separate and earlier case against Amazon, In re Amazon Prime Video Litigation (Case No. 2:22-cv-00401-RSM), has been pending in the same federal court since 2022 after being transferred from New York.{10ClassAction.org. Class Action Argues Amazon Does Not Actually Own Digital Content It Sells to Consumers} The plaintiffs there make a similar claim: that Amazon misrepresents ownership and can remove content from customer libraries without warning or refund when licensing agreements end.{11Rebecca Tushnet’s 43(B)log. Another Buy Button Lawsuit Over Digital Licenses Continues} Amazon argued its use of “buy” is not deceptive, citing Webster’s definition of the word as acquiring “rights to the use or services of payment.”{2The Hollywood Reporter. Prime Video Lawsuit Over Movie License Ownership} The court denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss the unfair competition and false advertising claims, though it dismissed a Washington state unjust enrichment claim.{}
Apple faced the same theory in Andino v. Apple, Inc., filed in 2020 by a California resident, and settled the case in July 2025.{12Bloomberg Law. Apple Settles Allegations It Deceptively Sold Video Content} In 2021, U.S. District Judge John Mendez denied Apple’s motion to dismiss, writing that “in common usage, the term ‘buy’ means to acquire possession over something” and that it was “plausible… that reasonable consumers would expect their access couldn’t be revoked.”{13MediaPost. Apple Settles Claims Over Allegedly Deceptive Buy Button} Settlement terms were not publicly disclosed. A separate Apple “buy button” case in the Western District of New York, McTyere v. Apple, also survived dismissal, with the court noting that Apple’s reading of “buy” “conflates buying with renting.”{14Perkins Coie. Buy Today, Gone Tomorrow: Buy Button Digital Content Deceptive}
If Reingold survives Amazon’s motion to dismiss, it will be the first major test of California’s new digital disclosure law against one of the largest digital storefronts in the country.