A California consumer suing Amazon says the company misleads shoppers by suggesting they are buying movies outright on Prime Video, when in reality they are only purchasing a revocable license that can disappear without warning.

In a filing submitted Friday in Seattle federal court, plaintiff Lisa Reingold argues that Amazon violated a California digital property law by failing to clearly explain that clicking a “buy movie” button does not grant permanent ownership. She says Amazon cannot escape the proposed class action by burying disclosures in fine print.

Reingold’s lawsuit centers on a 2024 California statute, Assembly Bill 2426, which requires online sellers to clearly disclose whether digital media purchases convey true ownership or merely a limited license. The law mandates that such disclosures be presented separately from other terms and made prominent enough for consumers to notice.

According to Reingold, Amazon’s disclaimer does not meet that standard.

“The statute also requires that the disclaimer clearly calls attention to the language,” she said in her filing. “Amazon's disclaimer is the opposite: it is the smallest, least conspicuous text on the entire screen, buried at the bottom and far from the user's primary area of focus.”

She claims the notice appears within a block of refund-related language rather than as a standalone warning, undermining the law’s purpose.

Amazon has asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that consumers understand digital purchases differ from physical media like DVDs or VHS tapes.

“Ms. Reingold cannot show that any consumer would have been misled about what they were buying or reasonably think their digital-content purchase was not subject to a license and came with absolutely no restrictions,” Amazon said in its motion.

The company also maintains that customers are repeatedly directed to Prime Video’s terms of use, which state that purchased content “will generally continue to be available,” but “may become unavailable due to potential content provider restrictions or for other reasons.”

Reingold counters that those disclosures still fall short of what California law demands. She notes that the statute explicitly references visual cues such as large font, contrasting colors, or symbols, none of which Amazon uses.

“Amazon’s disclaimer is smaller than the surrounding text and uses no contrasting design elements or symbols,” she argued.

Amazon has also contended that Washington state law governs the dispute under its terms of service. Reingold disputes that position, saying California law should apply because it reflects a fundamental public policy protecting state consumers.

“The fundamental policy exception exists precisely for situations like this,” she said, “where a state like California has enacted a comprehensive regulatory scheme that would be entirely vitiated by contractual choice of law.”

She added that applying Washington law instead “would thwart California's fundamental interest in ensuring their state citizens clearly know and understand the nature of their transactions.”

Reingold filed the lawsuit in August, alleging that Amazon’s lack of clear disclosure caused consumers to pay more for digital movies than they otherwise would have.

“At no point prior to the purchase is the consumer ever put on notice, in plain language, that the audiovisual work he or she is buying is just a license that can be revoked at any time,” the complaint says. “Nor is the consumer ever required to provide an affirmative acknowledgment that he or she knows the limited property rights he or she is receiving with the purchase of the digital video.”

Attorneys for both sides did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The case is Reingold et al. v. Amazon.com Services LLC, case number 2:25-cv-01601, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.