American multinational company, Apple, is reportedly facing a putative class action in Sacramento, California. The lawsuit comes over the way Apple consumers can “rent” or “buy” TV shows, movies, and other content in the iTunes Store.
As per the Lead Plaintiff in this suit, David Andino, the distinction is deceiving. He alleged that Apple retains the right for terminating access to what has been purchased by consumers and has, in fact, done so on several occasions.
Sources cite that the tech giant has tried ways of slipping away from claims of unfair competition and false advertising. For instance, it tried the time-tested viewpoint of challenging Andino’s “injury” for knocking his potential standing as a plaintiff.
According to John Mendez, the Judge of the U.S. District Court, Apple contends that Plaintiff’s putative injury is not concrete but rather speculative. The injury is described as the plausibility that the purchased content might disappear one day.
However, as contended by Apple, the injury that the plaintiff alleges is not that he might lose access to his purchased content someday. Rather, while making the purchase, it is likely that he either paid a greater value for the product or spent amounts that he would not have spent but due to the misrepresentation.
Mendez highlighted that this economic injury is actual and concrete, and not speculative as contended by Apple. The injury is satisfied in fact requirement of Article III.
This week, Mendez clarified that he is not ready for buying into Apple’s view of customer expectations in the digital marketplace. As stated by Mendez, Apple contends that no reasonable consumer would believe that purchased content would be staying indefinitely on the iTunes platform.
However, in common usage, the term ‘buy’ signifies the acquisition of possession over something. It, therefore, seems possible, at least at the motion for dismissing stage, that reasonable clients would expect that their access could not be revoked, added Mendez.