Apr 26, 2021 13:00:00

Is it deceptive for Apple to say 'buy' in its App Store or iTunes content in the face of a class action lawsuit?

Apple has faced numerous proceedings regarding the operation of the App Store in recent years, but the new complaint that the word 'purchase' is used in the digital content provided on Apple's platform is deceptive. Has been submitted. Plaintiffs argue that what consumers are actually doing is 'renting' rather than 'purchasing,' and the question is what is 'purchasing' digital content.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
(PDF file) http://casefilingsalert.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Apple-Video-Content.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
(PDF file) https://www.classaction.org/media/price-v-apple-inc.pdf

Apple Must Face Lawsuit Over iTunes 'Buy' Button | Hollywood Reporter
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/apple-must-face-lawsuit-for-telling-consumers-they-can-buy-movies-tv-shows

Apple sued for terminating account with $ 25,000 worth of apps and videos | Ars Technica
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/apple-faces-class-action-lawsuit-over-its-definition-of-the-word-buy/

Apple offers content distribution services such as video and music on the iTunes Store, but when it comes to providing content, Apple has the word 'Purchase' on the select button on the screen. For this reason, many people who use content recognize that they are purchasing the content.

However, in a new class action proceeding Apple is facing, lawyer David Andino said, 'In fact, Apple has the right to block access to what consumers have purchased, and the term purchase. Is deceptive to use. ' He said that consumer behavior is not 'purchasing' but 'renting.'

In response, Apple argues that plaintiffs' allegations that 'consumer-purchased content disappears' are speculative and impractical. 'Economic loss' means paying a large amount of money at the time of purchase or paying for an incorrect display, so we have developed the theory that the plaintiff has not incurred any economic loss.

However, Judge John Mendes of the United States District Court did not accept Apple's view. 'Apple argues that'consumers believe that content will remain on the iTunes platform indefinitely'is unreasonable, but in general usage, the word'buy'. Means acquisition of ownership. At least at the stage of filing a petition for dismissal, it is plausible for consumers to believe that their access will not be revoked, 'Judge Mendes said.

Apple is also being asked to operate the platform in a separate proceeding.

Plaintiff Matthew Price spent about 2.65 million yen on App Store iTunes purchases and in-app purchases, but after that, Apple suspended Price's account and accessed the purchased items. It is said that it can no longer be done.

Both of the above proceedings are related to the possibility that content 'purchased' on Apple's platform may become inaccessible in the future. It can be said that the concept itself of 'owning' digital content by an individual is being questioned.

Apple is not the only one in the proceedings. Amazon has been filed in a similar proceeding regarding the provision of Amazon Prime Video services.

'Amazon Prime Video users don't actually buy content,' Amazon claims-GIGAZINE