Why Amazon’s Class Action Lawsuit Is a Lesson for Intentional Language

A proposed class action lawsuit against Amazon puts a spotlight on a problem that many companies didn’t create but may soon inherit.  

How intentional is the language in the products you sell in the digital marketplace?  

Are your customers retaining ownership of your products and if not, are they properly informed?  

Oh yes, it matters.  

Let’s break down the key issue at the heart of the lawsuit.

Let’s get into the mindset of the consumer. When a consumer goes to purchase a movie, the button and checkout process show variations of ‘buy,’ ‘purchase,’ or ‘own.’ This gives the customer an indication that they own the product, even if it is no longer available in the store.  

This indication isn’t exactly true.  

In February 2025, Amazon released a notice that you could no longer download or transfer your Kindle books, citing a similar critique on ownership. Without the ability to download the product purchased, Prime Video fans must rely on the platform to keep the content in their library.   

The lawsuit argues that Amazon marketed digital movies and shows as something consumers own permanently; however, this was not necessarily true. The terms of use and platform design allegedly reveal that consumers receive only a non-transferable, revocable license.  

The legal hook is California’s AB 2426, often described as a “Digital Property Rights Transparency” law, which aims to address digital storefronts that imply ownership when the customer is receiving a license.  

Read Our Blog: What Buyers Need to Know About Acquiring AI Companies in Data-Sensitive Industries 

Why mid-market business owners should care (even if you don’t sell movies)

This claim could potentially be repeated across industries, and particularly against companies that sell:  

• Digital training libraries
• Paid content memberships
• Downloadable templates or design assets
• Software subscriptions and add-ons
• Apps, plugins, and access tokens
• Games, media, or other “ownable looking” digital goods

AB 2426 broadly covers digital goods, including audiovisual works, apps, and other digital content. It also targets the marketing and transaction flows associated with them.  

For mid-market organizations, the risk is amplified because: 

• Your product pages may be written by marketing (not legal)
• Your checkout UX may be templated by a platform provider
• Your terms may be “industry standard,” but your labels might not be
• The compliance lesson: “fine print” is no longer a defense

Companies have relied on Terms of Use to clarify licensing rights, but this can change given the outcome of this case. While this may not influence Texas businesses, it is something to keep in mind as this lawsuit progresses, given the size of a company like Amazon.  

This lawsuit intersects with consumer protection law, contract formation and intellectual property (IP) licensing. 

Given these changes, what critical questions will litigators focus on next?

Expect courts and regulators to focus on three practical questions: 

1) What counts as “clear and conspicuous”?

This is where the next wave of litigation will live. Plaintiffs will argue that: 

• Font size
• Color contrast
• Placement
• Timing

All determine whether disclosure is meaningful.  

2) Do companies need a click-through acknowledgment?

AB 2426 explicitly allows compliance via affirmative acknowledgment. This invites a major strategic question: 

• Is a single checkbox enough?
• Should it be per product?
• Should it be unbundled from general terms?

Companies that adopt acknowledgment now may reduce litigation exposure later, while companies that don’t may become “test cases.”  

Read Our Blog: Business Implications of the FTC’s Tougher Privacy Protections 

3) How far does the law travel beyond California?

Even if your business doesn’t operate in California, many mid-market businesses sell nationally. This could reach outside California statues for multi-state claims and unfair competition allegations.  

With these legal questions in mind, what can mid-market businesses proactively do to protect themselves?

If you sell digital products or access rights, here is a defensible approach: 

Audit your language

Replace ambiguous ownership words where appropriate: 

• “Buy” → “Get access” / “License” / “Unlock.”
• “Own forever” → “Access while available / per terms.”
• “Purchase” → “License purchase” or “Digital license”

Put license disclosure where decisions are made

Place license disclosure on the product detail page, in the cart, and near the payment button upon checkout. 

AB 2426 is explicitly about disclosure and transparency at the point of sale.  

Add affirmative acknowledgment for California users

A simple checkbox can be powerful when drafted carefully: 

“I understand this purchase grants a license to access this digital product, not ownership, and access may change as rights and availability change.” 

This is the type of mechanism the statute anticipates.  

Align your terms, policies, and UI

If your website uses “buy,” “purchase,” or “own” language for digital goods, subscriptions or content, your risk exposure may not be in your terms, but may be in your marketing copywriting and checkout flow.  

Litigation risk spikes when the interface suggests ownership, but the contract limits access and the disclosure is late or hidden. 

That inconsistency is what fuels “deception” narratives. 

Ensure you are set up for success with a contract and intellectual property law firm that understands the stakes and can guide you through the process.  

Richards Rodriguez & Skeith has an expansive commercial law team for mid-market businesses that can guide you through this process in the digital marketplace. Contact our office today if you are interested in learning more.