Buy vs Sell
Lead plaintiff David Andino argues that Apple engages in deceptive practices, such as its ability to “terminate access to what consumers have ‘purchased.’” For example, a man named Matthew Price is currently suing Apple after having lost nearly US$25,000 worth of content after the company terminated his Apple ID. This is content he purchased and didn’t “rent.”
Apple is arguing that “no reasonable person would believe that purchased content would remain on the iTunes platform indefinitely. But U.S. District Court Judge John Mendez doesn’t buy it:
But in common usage, the term ‘buy’ means to acquire possession over something. It seems plausible, at least at the motion to dismiss stage, that reasonable consumers would expect their access couldn’t be revoked.
The deception argument lies in the fact that even when a customer does “buy” iTunes goods, Apple can still remove it from the platform at its discretion. Therefore, the word “buy” is false because the customer loses their purchased content.
David Andino (“Plaintiff”) argues this labeling is deceptive as the use of a “Buy” button and representation that content has been “Purchased” leads consumers to believe their access cannot be revoked.
The Hollywood Reporter notes that Judge Mendez left open the possibility of injunctive relief that could force Apple to change the way it sells content.