Yes, in the TOS, but it directly contradicts the plain language verbiage regarding Amazon's offer to purchase the movie. The options presented on the product page are "rent" or "buy" not "rent" or "rent indefinitely".
Under US law, when the technical terms of a contract contradict the plain language of the purported offer, they are void. This was hashed out long before computers even existed, because you have always had swindlers that would do shit like advertise a car on a car lot and then when you sign the actual purchase contract they buried a line in there that says you're buying a Hot Wheels car for $30,000.
The court in this case erred by allowing Amazon to continue using the language "buy or purchase" on the product page as their licensing agreement never gave them the authority to sell the film in the first place. It's intentionally deceptive, as they know what they are offering you is in fact an indefinite rental.
There's nothing immoral or illegal about offering an indefinite rental, the problem is that they represented it as a purchase instead of what it really was
Yes, in the TOS, but it directly contradicts the plain language verbiage regarding Amazon's offer to purchase the movie. The options presented on the product page are "rent" or "buy" not "rent" or "rent indefinitely".
Under US law, when the technical terms of a contract contradict the plain language of the purported offer, they are void. This was hashed out long before computers even existed, because you have always had swindlers that would do shit like advertise a car on a car lot and then when you sign the actual purchase contract they buried a line in there that says you're buying a Hot Wheels car for $30,000.
The court in this case erred by allowing Amazon to continue using the language "buy or purchase" on the product page as their licensing agreement never gave them the authority to sell the film in the first place. It's intentionally deceptive, as they know what they are offering you is in fact an indefinite rental.
There's nothing immoral or illegal about offering an indefinite rental, the problem is that they represented it as a purchase instead of what it really was