I hope he wins regardless of the reason his account was terminated and they are forced to write consumer friendly rules. We are encouraged to buy digital but in reality, we are really renting content that they (Apple, Amazon, Google, all digital movie publishers, etc.) can take away at any time. Amazon can pull a book right out of your account after all. We need some rules around content that make our content ours. He definitely should have downloaded his content. But I have tried that and I don’t have enough hard disk space for all those movies!!!!
CD and DVD content is also leased. The only thing you "own" is the physical media not the content on it. That said, it would be very hard to enforce
Physical media (such as CDs or vinyl records) are sold by music retailers and are owned by the consumers after they buy them. Buyers do not typically have the right to make digital copies from CDs or other media they buy, or rent or lease the CDs, because they do not own the recording on the CD, they only own the individual physical CD. A music distributor delivers crates of the packaged physical media from the manufacturer to the retailer and maintains commercial relationships with retailers and record companies. The music retailer pays the distributor, who in turn pays the record company for the recordings. The record company pays mechanical royalties to the publisher and composer via a collection society. The record company then pays royalties, if contractually obligated, to the recording artist.
So many people here saying “you broke the rules, you pay the price”. I wonder if they’ve really put themselves in this guy’s position. Of course we don’t know why this guy had his account terminated but should that matter? Apple is not a government, not any kind of law enforcement service, just a private company that is unaccountable to anyone but its shareholders.
is there a single person on this forum who would not be aggrieved if they permanently lost access to thousands of dollars worth of content with not even a reason given?
Putting aside for the moment the issue of this guy being banned, part of the larger picture is the way Apple deals with their customers.
I know this to my cost because one day I noticed a film I’d “purchased” on iTunes had disappeared- one of a bundle of five movies. I checked the store and the bundle was still there for the same price I paid for it (I checked back to my purchase receipt). All other four films were still accessible to me but not the fifth. I contacted Apple, assuming some glitch or mixup. I was met with a brick wall. I have only purchased a license to use Apple’s streaming service to access movie content that may be withdrawn at any time, for any reason.
I appealed to Apple’s sense of fair play. After all, I have thousands of dollars of purchases with them. I am a great customer. I simply asked the film bundle be refunded so I could repurchase it as currently listed for the same, identical, current price as I originally paid for it. I reasoned that it costs Apple nothing and we all get what we want, in my case access to a film that was removed by the distributor. The response was firmly negative.
When I, an honest user who has not broken any rules, can lose access to paid-for content silently without notification or reason given, surely this is a good time to review whether Apple is operating fairly?
Just another example of why app store monopolies are bad. Google and Apple need to open their app stores up and allow ALL 3rd party content to exist. I know there isn't much empathy for people on this board of Apple investors and cultists however, that doesn't change the fact Apple and Google's app stores are anti-competitive and hurt consumers overall.
Why do Google need to open anything up?
‘App Store monopolies’ is a meaningless term. It’s like saying Target has a Target monopoly when you shop there. I think you need to expand your thinking a bit here. Unfortunately it’s not 1890. I hope you’re never forced to buy Weezer songs from the Weezer monopoly. Do you know those guys decide what songs they put on an album!
I bet the majority of the $24K is on movies, and he was caught ripping them for distribution. Or something similar. Seriously, what else could a user do that would invite getting your Apple ID banned other than some form of theft/fraud.
there are so many reasons Apple could choose to terminate your ID. Things you do, things others do to you.
people talking about download your things, download all the apps for my phone?
and here is the clincher - my laptop and phone and tablet require my Apple ID to function, next minute you can’t even get security updates, you can’t even wipe them because that requires your Apple ID.
Sorry Apple, please don’t send your goons round to smash into my home and take everything that i have paid for outright, i own that book, i paid for those movies, no i use those tools for work, what you are taking the very phone out of my hand so i can’t call my lawyer
there are no analogies required. it is criminal
by the way, has anyone read the terms and conditions of iTunes and what happens to all your purchased music if you subscribe to Apple Music? i bet you haven’t. so sad too bad.
Ok, so I just (re)read the Terms and Conditions for Apple Music. There is nothing there that puts at risk your purchased music. Are you just making stuff up, or is there a clause or section that you can point to?
In fact on the Apple Music page, Apple specifically says "Your iTunes library is still yours. You can access your entire collection from Apple Music or from iTunes for macOS or Windows."
there are so many reasons Apple could choose to terminate your ID. Things you do, things others do to you.
people talking about download your things, download all the apps for my phone?
and here is the clincher - my laptop and phone and tablet require my Apple ID to function, next minute you can’t even get security updates, you can’t even wipe them because that requires your Apple ID.
Sorry Apple, please don’t send your goons round to smash into my home and take everything that i have paid for outright, i own that book, i paid for those movies, no i use those tools for work, what you are taking the very phone out of my hand so i can’t call my lawyer
there are no analogies required. it is criminal
by the way, has anyone read the terms and conditions of iTunes and what happens to all your purchased music if you subscribe to Apple Music? i bet you haven’t. so sad too bad.
If you had songs that were added to your Library with an Apple music subscription those songs/albums were not bought, and they disappear if you quit your Apple music subscription. If you purchased them through Itunes outside of Apple Music, or have items in Itunes Match those will be available to download and play with or without an Apple music subscription. If you quit Itunes match your music will be available to download.
I know this from spending an hour on a call with a senior advisor discussing it. I was pissed that iTunes Match is technically included with your Apple Music subscription and I am still being charged $25 a year for it? I don't mind paying for services but double dipping by not making customers aware of overlapping services is a shady IMHO.
This reminds me she gave me the info to request credit for the last 4 years of iTunes match I need to see how Apple will respond. Just haven't gotten around to it yet.
They will point to the multiple times in the various Terms and Conditions documents that says "It is your responsibility not to lose, destroy, or damage Content once downloaded. We encourage you to back up your Content regularly."
Perhaps he'll get the 7 bucks back on his iTunes account.
edit: further clarification.
The suit is claiming that Apple is effectively forcing the guy to pay unreasonable damages as a penalty for breaching the terms of service (this is the bit about "liquidated damages"). The idea is that Apple's "taking" $24,000 worth of content from him is such a penalty. This would apply if there were a clause in the Terms and Conditions that said "if you breach these terms, you will pay is ONE MILLION DOLLARS." That would be a clear example of a violation of common law rule that "the amount of the damages identified must roughly approximate the damages likely to fall upon the party seeking the benefit of the term" since Apple wouldn't have suffered a million dollars of damages from a violation. The reason this line of argument will go nowhere is that Apple isn't seeking damages of any kind. They are simply terminating the agreement. That is certainly an inconvenience for the guy, but it's not the same as seeking damages.
Imagine this analogue. Support I pay for an online backup service and I put priceless content on that service. Then I stop paying the service. Clearly, I would expect to lose access to everything on the service (assuming there wasn't a more generous provision in the Terms). I couldn't complain that I was forced to pay extraordinary damages to the provider.
My expectation is that this case will entirely come down to whether Apple's revocation of his Apple account was reasonable. If it wasn't, then I could see a court force Apple to reinstate the account (and perhaps compensate the plaintiff in some way?). But assuming Apple can show they followed their processes and their processes are reasonable, then this dude is out of luck.
There isn’t enough data here to render an opinion. We don’t know what happened, and if Apple has not told the customer why, then certainly he is entitled to seek legal action. If he is suing and omitting information that shows why Apple did what it did, then it should come out in court, and if it merits what Apple did, then the guy has no case.
$25,000 is a lot of content, so one theory is using stolen iTunes cards or swindling people into paying ransoms using iTunes cards COULD be a basis for this action, but again we don’t know all the facts so this is pure speculation.
There isn’t enough data here to render an opinion. We don’t know what happened, and if Apple has not told the customer why, then certainly he is entitled to seek legal action. If he is suing and omitting information that shows why Apple did what it did, then it should come out in court, and if it merits what Apple did, then the guy has no case.
$25,000 is a lot of content, so one theory is using stolen iTunes cards or swindling people into paying ransoms using iTunes cards COULD be a basis for this action, but again we don’t know all the facts so this is pure speculation.
If you read the complaint (as I just did), it turns out that the case isn't about this particular guy at all. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether Apple acted appropriately or not in his particulars. They are asserting that the clause that allows Apple to deactivate an account on the "suspicion" of failing to comply with the agreement is illegal (in various ways based on various laws). They are asking for the court to order Apple to reverse ALL account suspensions and pay such people compensation for their trouble.
Ironically, the Terms and Conditions also state that you agree to not sue Apple for anything it does with respect to investigating violations and suspecting accounts. So, if he wasn't in violation of the terms before, he is now! (Although I seriously doubt that that clause will hold up in any court.)
If you read the complaint (as I just did), it turns out that the case isn't about this particular guy at all. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether Apple acted appropriately or not in his particulars. They are asserting that the clause that allows Apple to deactivate an account on the "suspicion" of failing to comply with the agreement is illegal (in various ways based on various laws). They are asking for the court to order Apple to reverse ALL account suspensions and pay such people compensation for their trouble.
Ironically, the Terms and Conditions also state that you agree to not sue Apple for anything it does with respect to investigating violations and suspecting accounts. So, if he wasn't in violation of the terms before, he is now! (Although I seriously doubt that that clause will hold up in any court.)
Wait, the suit is basically claiming that Apple has no basis for terminating an Apple ID ever? That seems crazy.
I know some have said Apple should need more than ‘suspicion’, and they probably should, but has that even be determined? My guess: If a company the size of Apple is terminating account with $25K in content inside, they’ve probably done their homework and have some pretty good proof that this guy is not only breaching T&Cs, but likely flagrantly so. They aren’t just going to terminate an account without strong backup to present. Now they should probably be more transparent about the reason, but really, they aren’t just going to it willy-nilly. I’d also guess the accused has a backstory that they aren’t sharing publicly, that will come out at some point. Stay tuned....
I had to stop reading comments because there are just too many stupid ones. It’s called responsibility and accountability. If the offending accuser doesn’t shed light on specifically WHY their account was terminated, don’t jump to ignorant conclusions and fault Apple. There are TOS we all agree to that we’re to understand AND abide by.
I lost over $2300 of purchases by moving to another country, mostly movies and films. They won’t work in Europe anymore.
With these license agreements you don’t really own anything. I find it misleading to purchase a larger one-time fee and then find out it’s essentially the same as a streaming service (in which case I would accept these conditions, being a subscriber). But when you suggest you buy a product, I want to friggin’ access it world-wide!
If you read the complaint (as I just did), it turns out that the case isn't about this particular guy at all. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether Apple acted appropriately or not in his particulars. They are asserting that the clause that allows Apple to deactivate an account on the "suspicion" of failing to comply with the agreement is illegal (in various ways based on various laws). They are asking for the court to order Apple to reverse ALL account suspensions and pay such people compensation for their trouble.
Ironically, the Terms and Conditions also state that you agree to not sue Apple for anything it does with respect to investigating violations and suspecting accounts. So, if he wasn't in violation of the terms before, he is now! (Although I seriously doubt that that clause will hold up in any court.)
Wait, the suit is basically claiming that Apple has no basis for terminating an Apple ID ever? That seems crazy.
I know some have said Apple should need more than ‘suspicion’, and they probably should, but has that even be determined? My guess: If a company the size of Apple is terminating account with $25K in content inside, they’ve probably done their homework and have some pretty good proof that this guy is not only breaching T&Cs, but likely flagrantly so. They aren’t just going to terminate an account without strong backup to present. Now they should probably be more transparent about the reason, but really, they aren’t just going to it willy-nilly. I’d also guess the accused has a backstory that they aren’t sharing publicly, that will come out at some point. Stay tuned....
It's not that simple. No one would argue that Apple can't terminate Apple IDs under some circumstances. They are arguing that Apple is taking this too far, and make the effort of terminating an Apple ID more painful than necessary.
The suit includes 9 "counts." The first is that Apple's clause to terminate accounts is an illegal "liquidated damages" clause. This would be the case if the TOS said "if you violate the agreement, you must pay Apple a million dollars." In fact Apple assesses no damages whatsoever; it just deactivates the account. This is no different than a clause in a storage locker agreement that says you forfeit your stuff if you don't pay the bill and don't claim your possessions within a certain time period. That's not a liquidated damage clause. So Count 1 is going nowhere.
Count 2 claims that Apple violated the California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) by "representing that a transaction confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations that it does not have or involve, or that are prohibited by law" and "by inserting an unconscionable provision in the contract." That's pretty much all Count 2 says, so without reading the CLRA, it's not clear what they are getting at exactly.
Count 3 says Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) by undertaking "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." They argue that "Apple’s acts and practices are unfair in that they are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers." Specifically "the above clause in its
Terms and Conditions permitting Apple to terminate Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ Apple IDs on mere suspicion is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to its consumers. (Then they try to make the same liquidated damages argument from Claim 1.)
This Count 3 is the big one because this is where the ask the court to:
"Permanently enjoining Apple from continuing to engage in its unfair and unlawful conduct as alleged herein" and "make full restitution of the value of all terminated Apple IDs"; "make full restitution of the diminished value of all Apple devices that had a terminated Apple ID associated with them"; and "disgorge all ill-gotten revenues and/or profits." I love that word "disgorge" don't you? It's right up there with "unconscionable." If they can convince a judge that it's "unconscionable" that Apple asserts the right to deactivate Apple IDs on the suspicion of wrongdoing, Apple will have a long day in court. In practice, I expect Apple will have no trouble demonstrating that their behavior is far from "unconscionable" whatever legal standard that requires.
Count 4 is exactly the same as Count 3 except this time they argue that these practices are "unfair" according to the requirements of the UCL. The argument goes that's it unfair because the customer doesn't have the ability to opt out of the Apple ID provision of any of these TOSs and because the Apple ID deactivation is an unreasonably harsh penalty for violation. Asks for the same remedy as Count 3.
Count 5 claims that Apple's behavior illegal based again on the UCL because Apple made claims that were "fraudulent." This argument is very brief and makes no sense, so enough said.
Claim 6. makes the same claim as Claim 5, but this time based on California’s False Advertising Law. Here's what they say is untrue or misleading: "[Apple] also violated the FAL by representing that customers’ Apple IDs and the money in their accounts is valuable and can be used to purchased Content, when in reality Apple prevents its customers from accessing the Content they paid for when it terminates their Apple IDs, and if these customers have any unused money in their Apple Accounts, they lose access to those unspent funds as well." I can't see how they can make that claim when it's clear from the TOS document that that is exactly what will happen if your Apple ID is deactivated.
Claim 7. "Apple has wrongfully exercised dominion over the property, i.e. money, Apps,services, TV shows, movies, music, books and/or Content in their Apple accounts." No idea what law they are say this violates; presumably US or California common law. This one boils down to "give us our stuff back!"
Claim 8. Apple interfered with plaintiff's use of their Apple devices without their consent (by making them less functional without their Apple ID). "Apple acted despicably and with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s and the Classes’ rights." (Be sure to read that with a Daffy Duck accent.)
Claim 9. "Unjust Enrichment." "[Apple] has been unjustly enriched in retaining the revenues derived from Class Members’ purchases of an Apple device and/or creation of an Apple ID and/or purchases of Content, which retention of such revenues under these circumstances is unjust and inequitable" [for all the reasons described above. This is where they make a claim on "all profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained by [Apple] for its inequitable, unconscionable, and unlawful conduct."
$25,000 is a lot of content, so one theory is using stolen iTunes cards or swindling people into paying ransoms using iTunes cards COULD be a basis for this action, but again we don’t know all the facts so this is pure speculation.
Bingo. I forgot about scammers asking for iTunes cards as a form of payment. Some “flagged” cards may have been used on his account, exposing him as the final link in a fraud scam.
If the plaintiff has indeed egregiously violated Apple's terms and conditions to the point that warranted having his account terminated that would be acceptable, but I do think that unused funds in his account should be sent back to him as a gift card since he would then have the option or gifting it to someone else or signing up for a new iTunes account.
At first I was going to suggest that it be refunded as a cash in the form of a check, but I can see how that could be abused. For example, someone finds a great deal on iTunes Gift Cards at 20% off, as is often the case. Let's say they buy $80,000 for a value of $100,000. They add those to a new iTunes account which they work to violate using only free apps which would then close out the account and refund them the amount of the gift cards now at $100,000 in cash. That's a problem, and making an upper limit on the cash payout isn't a great solution.
It’s not “acceptable.” Liquidated damages can only be used to compensate the non breaching party for actual damages, and cannot be assessed as a penalty.
there are so many reasons Apple could choose to terminate your ID. Things you do, things others do to you.
people talking about download your things, download all the apps for my phone?
and here is the clincher - my laptop and phone and tablet require my Apple ID to function, next minute you can’t even get security updates, you can’t even wipe them because that requires your Apple ID.
Sorry Apple, please don’t send your goons round to smash into my home and take everything that i have paid for outright, i own that book, i paid for those movies, no i use those tools for work, what you are taking the very phone out of my hand so i can’t call my lawyer
there are no analogies required. it is criminal
by the way, has anyone read the terms and conditions of iTunes and what happens to all your purchased music if you subscribe to Apple Music? i bet you haven’t. so sad too bad.
You give the impression you have crossed Apple and been punished. You break the rules, you pay the price.
Although it has happened, it is pretty rare such punishment is unjustified.
So because of your nonsensical opinion that punishments are “rarely” unjustified (whatever that means), people who are wrongfully accused and punished should never be allowed to seek redress?
that’s like saying people who are arrested are usually guilty so trials are not necessary for anyone.
I watch the movies that I purchased and downloaded (or rented and downloaded and view within the allotted time).
Leave your device disconnected for a few months then try to watch that content. It won't work. Your devices have to phone back to the mothership routinely or the content locks.
If you read the complaint (as I just did), it turns out that the case isn't about this particular guy at all. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether Apple acted appropriately or not in his particulars. They are asserting that the clause that allows Apple to deactivate an account on the "suspicion" of failing to comply with the agreement is illegal (in various ways based on various laws). They are asking for the court to order Apple to reverse ALL account suspensions and pay such people compensation for their trouble.
Ironically, the Terms and Conditions also state that you agree to not sue Apple for anything it does with respect to investigating violations and suspecting accounts. So, if he wasn't in violation of the terms before, he is now! (Although I seriously doubt that that clause will hold up in any court.)
Wait, the suit is basically claiming that Apple has no basis for terminating an Apple ID ever? That seems crazy.
I know some have said Apple should need more than ‘suspicion’, and they probably should, but has that even be determined? My guess: If a company the size of Apple is terminating account with $25K in content inside, they’ve probably done their homework and have some pretty good proof that this guy is not only breaching T&Cs, but likely flagrantly so. They aren’t just going to terminate an account without strong backup to present. Now they should probably be more transparent about the reason, but really, they aren’t just going to it willy-nilly. I’d also guess the accused has a backstory that they aren’t sharing publicly, that will come out at some point. Stay tuned....
It's not that simple. No one would argue that Apple can't terminate Apple IDs under some circumstances. They are arguing that Apple is taking this too far, and make the effort of terminating an Apple ID more painful than necessary.
The suit includes 9 "counts." The first is that Apple's clause to terminate accounts is an illegal "liquidated damages" clause. This would be the case if the TOS said "if you violate the agreement, you must pay Apple a million dollars." In fact Apple assesses no damages whatsoever; it just deactivates the account. This is no different than a clause in a storage locker agreement that says you forfeit your stuff if you don't pay the bill and don't claim your possessions within a certain time period. That's not a liquidated damage clause. So Count 1 is going nowhere.
Count 2 claims that Apple violated the California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) by "representing that a transaction confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations that it does not have or involve, or that are prohibited by law" and "by inserting an unconscionable provision in the contract." That's pretty much all Count 2 says, so without reading the CLRA, it's not clear what they are getting at exactly.
Count 3 says Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) by undertaking "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." They argue that "Apple’s acts and practices are unfair in that they are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers." Specifically "the above clause in its
Terms and Conditions permitting Apple to terminate Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ Apple IDs on mere suspicion is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to its consumers. (Then they try to make the same liquidated damages argument from Claim 1.)
This Count 3 is the big one because this is where the ask the court to:
"Permanently enjoining Apple from continuing to engage in its unfair and unlawful conduct as alleged herein" and "make full restitution of the value of all terminated Apple IDs"; "make full restitution of the diminished value of all Apple devices that had a terminated Apple ID associated with them"; and "disgorge all ill-gotten revenues and/or profits." I love that word "disgorge" don't you? It's right up there with "unconscionable." If they can convince a judge that it's "unconscionable" that Apple asserts the right to deactivate Apple IDs on the suspicion of wrongdoing, Apple will have a long day in court. In practice, I expect Apple will have no trouble demonstrating that their behavior is far from "unconscionable" whatever legal standard that requires.
Count 4 is exactly the same as Count 3 except this time they argue that these practices are "unfair" according to the requirements of the UCL. The argument goes that's it unfair because the customer doesn't have the ability to opt out of the Apple ID provision of any of these TOSs and because the Apple ID deactivation is an unreasonably harsh penalty for violation. Asks for the same remedy as Count 3.
Count 5 claims that Apple's behavior illegal based again on the UCL because Apple made claims that were "fraudulent." This argument is very brief and makes no sense, so enough said.
Claim 6. makes the same claim as Claim 5, but this time based on California’s False Advertising Law. Here's what they say is untrue or misleading: "[Apple] also violated the FAL by representing that customers’ Apple IDs and the money in their accounts is valuable and can be used to purchased Content, when in reality Apple prevents its customers from accessing the Content they paid for when it terminates their Apple IDs, and if these customers have any unused money in their Apple Accounts, they lose access to those unspent funds as well." I can't see how they can make that claim when it's clear from the TOS document that that is exactly what will happen if your Apple ID is deactivated.
Claim 7. "Apple has wrongfully exercised dominion over the property, i.e. money, Apps,services, TV shows, movies, music, books and/or Content in their Apple accounts." No idea what law they are say this violates; presumably US or California common law. This one boils down to "give us our stuff back!"
Claim 8. Apple interfered with plaintiff's use of their Apple devices without their consent (by making them less functional without their Apple ID). "Apple acted despicably and with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s and the Classes’ rights." (Be sure to read that with a Daffy Duck accent.)
Claim 9. "Unjust Enrichment." "[Apple] has been unjustly enriched in retaining the revenues derived from Class Members’ purchases of an Apple device and/or creation of an Apple ID and/or purchases of Content, which retention of such revenues under these circumstances is unjust and inequitable" [for all the reasons described above. This is where they make a claim on "all profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained by [Apple] for its inequitable, unconscionable, and unlawful conduct."
Sounds like they are trying to make Count 3 (the “suspicion” thing) seem reasonable when compared to the other counts. So the judge will throw the others out, but allow that one to move ahead. By itself, it’s a stretch, but it makes more sense than the others.
I don’t think this is terribly sticky for Apple when it comes to iTunes content. It’s complex due to changing technology over time, but it’s not unclear. The area that seems less clear to me is third-party software licensing.
While I am sure that Apple will have valid reasons for terminating the Apple ID, this does point out that you don't own anything you buy if it is digital. Apple (and any other company) can pull the rug out from beneath you at any moment and for any reason and you have no recourse. This is why you should buy digital content sparingly. Other thoughts: Apple may not be able to say why it terminated the Apple ID without violating its own privacy rules. Your Apple ID could get terminated if someone discovers your password and uses your account for illegal purposes. Tying access to digital content to an Apple ID promotes piracy. Why pay for something that could vanish suddenly?
Comments
Physical media (such as CDs or vinyl records) are sold by music retailers and are owned by the consumers after they buy them. Buyers do not typically have the right to make digital copies from CDs or other media they buy, or rent or lease the CDs, because they do not own the recording on the CD, they only own the individual physical CD. A music distributor delivers crates of the packaged physical media from the manufacturer to the retailer and maintains commercial relationships with retailers and record companies. The music retailer pays the distributor, who in turn pays the record company for the recordings. The record company pays mechanical royalties to the publisher and composer via a collection society. The record company then pays royalties, if contractually obligated, to the recording artist.
is there a single person on this forum who would not be aggrieved if they permanently lost access to thousands of dollars worth of content with not even a reason given?
I know this to my cost because one day I noticed a film I’d “purchased” on iTunes had disappeared- one of a bundle of five movies. I checked the store and the bundle was still there for the same price I paid for it (I checked back to my purchase receipt). All other four films were still accessible to me but not the fifth. I contacted Apple, assuming some glitch or mixup. I was met with a brick wall. I have only purchased a license to use Apple’s streaming service to access movie content that may be withdrawn at any time, for any reason.
I appealed to Apple’s sense of fair play. After all, I have thousands of dollars of purchases with them. I am a great customer. I simply asked the film bundle be refunded so I could repurchase it as currently listed for the same, identical, current price as I originally paid for it. I reasoned that it costs Apple nothing and we all get what we want, in my case access to a film that was removed by the distributor. The response was firmly negative.
When I, an honest user who has not broken any rules, can lose access to paid-for content silently without notification or reason given, surely this is a good time to review whether Apple is operating fairly?
I bet the majority of the $24K is on movies, and he was caught ripping them for distribution. Or something similar. Seriously, what else could a user do that would invite getting your Apple ID banned other than some form of theft/fraud.
In fact on the Apple Music page, Apple specifically says "Your iTunes library is still yours. You can access your entire collection from Apple Music or from iTunes for macOS or Windows."
They will point to the multiple times in the various Terms and Conditions documents that says "It is your responsibility not to lose, destroy, or damage Content once downloaded. We encourage you to back up your Content regularly."
Perhaps he'll get the 7 bucks back on his iTunes account.
edit: further clarification.
The suit is claiming that Apple is effectively forcing the guy to pay unreasonable damages as a penalty for breaching the terms of service (this is the bit about "liquidated damages"). The idea is that Apple's "taking" $24,000 worth of content from him is such a penalty. This would apply if there were a clause in the Terms and Conditions that said "if you breach these terms, you will pay is ONE MILLION DOLLARS." That would be a clear example of a violation of common law rule that "the amount of the damages identified must roughly approximate the damages likely to fall upon the party seeking the benefit of the term" since Apple wouldn't have suffered a million dollars of damages from a violation. The reason this line of argument will go nowhere is that Apple isn't seeking damages of any kind. They are simply terminating the agreement. That is certainly an inconvenience for the guy, but it's not the same as seeking damages.
Imagine this analogue. Support I pay for an online backup service and I put priceless content on that service. Then I stop paying the service. Clearly, I would expect to lose access to everything on the service (assuming there wasn't a more generous provision in the Terms). I couldn't complain that I was forced to pay extraordinary damages to the provider.
My expectation is that this case will entirely come down to whether Apple's revocation of his Apple account was reasonable. If it wasn't, then I could see a court force Apple to reinstate the account (and perhaps compensate the plaintiff in some way?). But assuming Apple can show they followed their processes and their processes are reasonable, then this dude is out of luck.
$25,000 is a lot of content, so one theory is using stolen iTunes cards or swindling people into paying ransoms using iTunes cards COULD be a basis for this action, but again we don’t know all the facts so this is pure speculation.
Ironically, the Terms and Conditions also state that you agree to not sue Apple for anything it does with respect to investigating violations and suspecting accounts. So, if he wasn't in violation of the terms before, he is now! (Although I seriously doubt that that clause will hold up in any court.)
With these license agreements you don’t really own anything. I find it misleading to purchase a larger one-time fee and then find out it’s essentially the same as a streaming service (in which case I would accept these conditions, being a subscriber).
But when you suggest you buy a product, I want to friggin’ access it world-wide!
The suit includes 9 "counts." The first is that Apple's clause to terminate accounts is an illegal "liquidated damages" clause. This would be the case if the TOS said "if you violate the agreement, you must pay Apple a million dollars." In fact Apple assesses no damages whatsoever; it just deactivates the account. This is no different than a clause in a storage locker agreement that says you forfeit your stuff if you don't pay the bill and don't claim your possessions within a certain time period. That's not a liquidated damage clause. So Count 1 is going nowhere.
Count 2 claims that Apple violated the California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) by "representing that a transaction confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations that it does not have or involve, or that are prohibited by law" and "by inserting an unconscionable provision in the contract." That's pretty much all Count 2 says, so without reading the CLRA, it's not clear what they are getting at exactly.
Count 3 says Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) by undertaking "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." They argue that "Apple’s acts and practices are unfair in that they are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers." Specifically "the above clause in its
This Count 3 is the big one because this is where the ask the court to:
Count 4 is exactly the same as Count 3 except this time they argue that these practices are "unfair" according to the requirements of the UCL. The argument goes that's it unfair because the customer doesn't have the ability to opt out of the Apple ID provision of any of these TOSs and because the Apple ID deactivation is an unreasonably harsh penalty for violation. Asks for the same remedy as Count 3.
Claim 6. makes the same claim as Claim 5, but this time based on California’s False Advertising Law. Here's what they say is untrue or misleading: "[Apple] also violated the FAL by representing that customers’ Apple IDs and the money in their accounts is valuable and can be used to purchased Content, when in reality Apple prevents its customers from accessing the Content they paid for when it terminates their Apple IDs, and if these customers have any unused money in their Apple Accounts, they lose access to those unspent funds as well." I can't see how they can make that claim when it's clear from the TOS document that that is exactly what will happen if your Apple ID is deactivated.
Claim 7. "Apple has wrongfully exercised dominion over the property, i.e. money, Apps,services, TV shows, movies, music, books and/or Content in their Apple accounts." No idea what law they are say this violates; presumably US or California common law. This one boils down to "give us our stuff back!"
Claim 8. Apple interfered with plaintiff's use of their Apple devices without their consent (by making them less functional without their Apple ID). "Apple acted despicably and with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s and the Classes’ rights." (Be sure to read that with a Daffy Duck accent.)
Claim 9. "Unjust Enrichment." "[Apple] has been unjustly enriched in retaining the revenues derived from Class Members’ purchases of an Apple device and/or creation of an Apple ID and/or purchases of Content, which retention of such revenues under these circumstances is unjust and inequitable" [for all the reasons described above. This is where they make a claim on "all profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained by [Apple] for its inequitable, unconscionable, and unlawful conduct."
So because of your nonsensical opinion that punishments are “rarely” unjustified (whatever that means), people who are wrongfully accused and punished should never be allowed to seek redress?
that’s like saying people who are arrested are usually guilty so trials are not necessary for anyone.
Not true.
I don’t think this is terribly sticky for Apple when it comes to iTunes content. It’s complex due to changing technology over time, but it’s not unclear. The area that seems less clear to me is third-party software licensing.
Other thoughts:
Apple may not be able to say why it terminated the Apple ID without violating its own privacy rules.
Your Apple ID could get terminated if someone discovers your password and uses your account for illegal purposes.
Tying access to digital content to an Apple ID promotes piracy. Why pay for something that could vanish suddenly?