Imagine buying a car, only for the seller to return years later, take it back, and refuse a refund. The same hypothetical was posed by an X user, in response to an incident involving a now-deleted Reddit thread.
Now, it’s sparking questions about consumer rights over digital purchases.
The viral moment involves Reddit user, ugoindownsaka1, who requested a refund via a Google support specialist chat after his purchase of The Lord of the Rings: Extended Edition Trilogy was removed from Google Library’s catalogue.
The live support specialist responded to the request, stating that “because the movie was bought in 2022, it exceeds [Google’s] standard 120-day refund window,” according to screenshots posted on X by user, TolkienWorldG, which has garnered over 1 million views.
Users have taken to the comments to express their frustration, share similar experiences, and general confusion around what the legal definition of “buy” means when it comes to “purchasing” digital content.
According to Justin Brookman, director of technology policy at Consumer Reports, that confusion is hardly surprising.
“I don’t think consumers understand that buying content online only means that you can access content for as long as the seller decides,” Brookman told Inc.
The issue has become significant enough to prompt legislative action. In 2024, California passed a bill barring digital storefronts from using the terms “buy” or “purchase” without explicitly stating that consumers are actually receiving a revocable license, not outright ownership. Still, Brookman argues that it may not have been sufficient enough to solve the problem.
“Right now, the law is unclear as to what legal rights you have,” he said. “Existing consumer protection law prohibits unfair and deceptive business practices, so if a company says you have “bought” digital content and then later pulls the rug out from under you, there is a very strong argument that it is illegal.”
Previously, Brookman was the policy director of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s office of technology research and investigation.
Instances like this have triggered some FTC attention in the past, he says. In the late 2000s, the FTC sent warning letters to Microsoft and MLB for their similar practices, he added. Those cases were closed after both companies offered refunds, and enforcement around “bricking” – or rendering useless – digital content hasn’t had much enforcement.
“Increasingly it seems like companies are trying to get away with bricking digital content without offering a refund,” he said.
This year, a member of the California State Assembly, Chris Ward, introduced Assembly Bill 1921 (also known as the Protect Our Games Act) which aimed to prevent video game companies from similar action without providing consumer remedies like providing a refund.
“Californians should not have to sacrifice their privacy, pay manipulated prices, or lose access to products they already purchased simply because corporations prioritise profits over consumers,” said Assemblymember Chris Ward in a press release.
“These bills push back against some of the most exploitative practices in the digital economy and reaffirm that people – not corporations – should control their personal information and purchases.”
Consumer Reports supported the bill, but according to Brookman, it has since “died”, although he is hopeful it will be reintroduced.
“Regulators are going to have to confront this problem head on as companies are increasingly pushing the boundaries absent enforcement,” he added.
In the meantime, Brookman says consumers should “absolutely be entitled to a refund” when their content suddenly disappears.
He distinguishes digital purchases from platforms like Netflix, which regularly rotates content,
“Movies come and go from Netflix, but that’s a monthly subscription people can make an informed choice about each month,” said Brookman. “It’s not really a fair bargain if a consumer has no idea how long they’ll be able to use a certain product.”
Google did not respond to Inc’s request for comment at the time of publication. – Inc./Tribune News Service
