Audible class action lawsuit: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

Audible allegedly misleads consumers into thinking they own the audiobooks they purchase.

{{IncidentCargo|title=Audible allegedly misleads consumers into thinking they own the audiobooks they purchase|company=Audible (Amazon)|date=2025-08-28|}}location=United States|type=Digital ownership / licensing controversy}}

==Background==

Audible ~~has~~ audiobooks available for purchase.

Audible markets audiobooks for “purchase,” yet its legal terms state that consumers receive a '''limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable license''' to access content rather than full ownership, and that continued access and re-download are not guaranteed.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-02-18 |title=License Agreement |url=https://www.audible.com/legal/license-agreement |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Audible.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2025-09-10 |title=Audible Service Conditions of Use |url=https://www.audible.com/legal/conditions-of-use |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Audible.com |quote=As a convenience to you we may continue to make your purchased content available for re-download… we do not guarantee that such content will be available for re-download.}}</ref>

In '''California''', the '''Digital Property Rights Transparency Law''' (AB 2426) amended the state’s False Advertising Law by adding '''Business & Professions Code § 17500.6'''. Effective '''January 1, 2025''', sellers may not use terms a reasonable consumer associates with '''unrestricted ownership''' (e.g., “buy,” “purchase”) for digital goods '''unless''' they provide a clear pre-transaction disclosure that the consumer is receiving a license (with a link to the full terms), or obtain the consumer’s affirmative acknowledgment of license restrictions at the time of purchase.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-09-24 |title=AB 2426 (Irwin) – Chapter 513, Statutes of 2024 |url=https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2426/id/2927156 |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=LegiScan}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2024-04-02 |title=Assembly Committee on Privacy & Consumer Protection: Analysis of AB 2426 (Irwin) |url=https://apcp.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2024-03/ab-2426-irwin-apcp-analysis.pdf |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=California State Assembly}}</ref>

The '''Federal Trade Commission (FTC)''' has separately warned that platforms must be clear about what consumers actually receive when offered digital products described as “bought” or “purchased,” emphasizing that claims implying ownership when only a license is provided can be deceptive.<ref>{{cite web |date=2023-08-01 |title=Can’t lose what you never had: Claims about digital ownership |url=https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/08/cant-lose-what-you-never-had-claims-about-digital-ownership-creation-age-generative-ai |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref>

Courts have also recognized that many digital transactions confer '''licenses''' rather than ownership, limiting first-sale and resale rights (e.g., ''Vernor v. Autodesk'', 9th Cir. 2010; ''Capitol Records v. ReDigi'', 2d Cir. 2018).<ref>{{cite web |date=2010-09-10 |title=Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010) |url=https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2018-12-12 |title=Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 910 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2018) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-2321/16-2321-2018-12-12.html |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Justia}}</ref>

==Consumer impact and related incidents==

Consumers have reported '''purchased titles becoming difficult to find''' or '''unavailable''' in their libraries when licensing or catalog changes occur. Audible’s own help pages acknowledge “missing title” scenarios and provide steps to locate archived or hidden items.<ref>{{cite web |title=Title is missing |url=https://help.audible.com/s/article/title-is-missing?language=en_US |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Audible Help Center}}</ref> Independent accounts describe older purchases not appearing in in-app search results after delisting, contributing to confusion when the storefront uses “buy” language but the underlying transaction grants a license.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-05-21 |title=Audible and the strange case of the disappearing audiobooks |url=https://mikefinnsfiction.com/2024/05/21/audible-and-the-strange-case-of-the-disappearing-audiobooks/ |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Mike Finn’s Fiction}}</ref>

This ambiguity reflects a wider '''industry pattern'''. For example, '''Valve/Steam''' added a prominent shopping-cart notice in 2024 stating that a purchase of a digital product '''grants a license''', not ownership.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-10-11 |title=Steam now explicitly states you’re not buying the game, just a license |url=https://www.techspot.com/news/105108-steam-now-explicitly-states-youre-not-buying-game.html |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=TechSpot}}</ref> '''Sony PlayStation''' initially announced it would remove previously purchased '''Discovery''' TV content due to licensing, then reversed course after public backlash, illustrating that access to “purchased” media may depend on ongoing licensing arrangements outside consumers’ control.<ref>{{cite web |date=2023-12 |title=PlayStation Video Content (US) legal notice |url=https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psvideocontent/ |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=PlayStation}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2023-12-21 |title=Discovery shows you’ve bought on PlayStation actually won’t be taken away |url=https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/21/24011168/sony-playstation-discovery-shows-not-removed |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=The Verge}}</ref> In gaming, '''Ubisoft''' shut down servers for ''The Crew'' (2014), leaving purchasers unable to play and sparking litigation and preservation debates about digital ownership expectations.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-04-16 |title=Ubisoft is stripping people’s licences for The Crew |url=https://www.pcgamer.com/games/racing/ubisoft-is-stripping-peoples-licences-for-the-crew-weeks-after-its-shutdown-nearly-squandering-hopes-of-private-servers-and-acting-as-a-stark-reminder-of-how-volatile-digital-ownership-is/ |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=PC Gamer}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2024-11-04 |title=Ubisoft sued for shutting down The Crew |url=https://www.polygon.com/gaming/476979/ubisoft-the-crew-shut-down-lawsuit-class-action |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Polygon}}</ref>

==~~[Incident]~~==

==Timeline==

~~{{Ph-I-I}}~~

===~~[Company]~~'~~s response~~===

*'''2009-07''' – Amazon remotely deletes '''George Orwell’s ''1984''''' and ''Animal Farm'' from Kindles due to rights issues; later settles and promises limits on remote deletions.<ref>{{cite web |date=2009-10-01 |title=Amazon Settles Kindle “1984” Lawsuit |url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/519855/amazon_kindle_1984_lawsuit.html |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=PCWorld}}</ref>

*'''2010-09''' – ''Vernor v. Autodesk'' (9th Cir.) clarifies license vs. ownership in software resale.<ref>{{cite web |date=2010-09-10 |title=Vernor v. Autodesk |url=https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit}}</ref>

*'''2018-12''' – ''Capitol Records v. ReDigi'' (2d Cir.) limits first-sale for digital music file transfers.<ref>{{cite web |date=2018-12-12 |title=Capitol Records v. ReDigi |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-2321/16-2321-2018-12-12.html |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Justia}}</ref>

*'''2023-12''' – PlayStation announces, then reverses, removal of purchased '''Discovery''' TV content.<ref>{{cite web |date=2023-12-21 |title=Discovery shows won’t be removed |url=https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/21/24011168/sony-playstation-discovery-shows-not-removed |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=The Verge}}</ref>

*'''2024-09-24''' – California '''AB 2426''' is chaptered; effective '''2025-01-01'''.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-09-24 |title=AB 2426 – Chaptered text |url=https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2426/id/2927156 |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=LegiScan}}</ref>

*'''2025-02-18''' – Audible updates its '''License Agreement''' (explicit license language remains).<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-02-18 |title=License Agreement |url=https://www.audible.com/legal/license-agreement |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Audible.com}}</ref>

*'''2025-08-28''' – '''Deitrich & Farrell v. Audible, Inc.''' filed in W.D. Wash., alleging violations of AB 2426 and California consumer laws.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-08-28 |title=Deitrich & Farrell v. Audible, Inc. – Class Action Complaint |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.352061/gov.uscourts.wawd.352061.1.0.pdf |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=CourtListener (RECAP)}}</ref>

==Incident==

Reports describe consumers believing they '''own''' purchased audiobooks yet encountering '''disappearing titles''', '''re-download limits''', or '''search suppression''' for delisted works. Audible’s help documentation addresses “missing titles,” while independent posts recount library items not surfacing in app search after catalog changes.<ref>{{cite web |title=Title is missing |url=https://help.audible.com/s/article/title-is-missing?language=en_US |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Audible Help Center}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2024-05-21 |title=Audible and the strange case of the disappearing audiobooks |url=https://mikefinnsfiction.com/2024/05/21/audible-and-the-strange-case-of-the-disappearing-audiobooks/ |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Mike Finn’s Fiction}}</ref> This dynamic mirrors other digital storefronts where “buy” may denote a '''revocable license''' rather than perpetual ownership, a distinction now regulated in California by § 17500.6.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-04-02 |title=AB 2426 Analysis |url=https://apcp.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2024-03/ab-2426-irwin-apcp-analysis.pdf |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=California Assembly}}</ref>

==Company response==

As of the research date, Audible’s publicly available legal pages reflect the company’s position that audiobook “purchases” grant a '''limited, non-transferable license''', and that continued '''re-download is not guaranteed''' if content becomes unavailable. The posted License Agreement shows a last updated date of '''February 18, 2025''' (after AB 2426 took effect), while the Conditions of Use reiterate the lack of a re-download guarantee.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-02-18 |title=License Agreement |url=https://www.audible.com/legal/license-agreement |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Audible.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2025-09-10 |title=Audible Service Conditions of Use |url=https://www.audible.com/legal/conditions-of-use |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Audible.com}}</ref> No formal press release or public newsroom statement specific to AB 2426 or to the Deitrich/Farrell lawsuit was located in company-facing communications at the time of research.

==Lawsuit==

~~{{Ph-I-L}}~~

===Deitrich & Farrell v. Audible, Inc. (W.D. Wash. No. 2:25-cv-01659)===

On '''August 28, 2025''', plaintiffs '''Jeff Deitrich''' and '''Jessica Farrell''' filed a putative class action against Audible in the '''U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington'''. The complaint alleges that using '''“buy”/“purchase”''' for digital audiobooks without clear point-of-sale disclosure violates '''California Business & Professions Code § 17500.6 (AB 2426)''' and constitutes false advertising and unfair competition under California law. The suit seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorney’s fees, and California class certification.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-08-28 |title=Deitrich & Farrell v. Audible, Inc. – Class Action Complaint |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.352061/gov.uscourts.wawd.352061.1.0.pdf |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=CourtListener (RECAP)}}</ref>

===Related Audible litigation (context)===

*'''Golden Unicorn Enterprises & Big Dog Books v. Audible (S.D.N.Y.)''' – Contract and royalty accounting claims related to the “Great Listen Guarantee” were largely resolved in Audible’s favor by the district court in 2023.<ref>{{cite web |date=2023-01-14 |title=Golden Unicorn Enters. v. Audible, Inc. – Opinion |url=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/golden-unicorn-enters-v-1068772033 |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=vLex}}</ref>

*'''Hollis v. Audible (W.D. Wash.)''' – Putative class action alleging expiring '''Audible credits''' violate Washington’s gift certificate law; litigation ongoing as of the research date.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-12-12 |title=Hollis v. Audible, Inc. – Complaint (W.D. Wash.) |url=https://www.classaction.org/media/hollis-v-audible-inc.pdf |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=ClassAction.org (PDF)}}</ref>

*'''McKee v. Audible (C.D. Cal.)''' – Earlier class action addressing auto-renewal/credits and alleged unauthorized charges resolved by settlement approved in 2020.<ref>{{cite web |date=2017 |title=McKee v. Audible – Complaint (C.D. Cal.) |url=https://www.classaction.org/media/mckee-v-audible.pdf |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=ClassAction.org (PDF)}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2020-12-09 |title=Grant McKee v. Audible, Inc. et al., Final Approval Order |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2%3A2017cv01941/672378/207/ |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Justia}}</ref>

==Consumer response==

Consumer advocates and policymakers have urged clearer disclosures at the point of sale so that the use of “buy” or “purchase” does not mislead consumers when transactions are in fact licenses. The '''FTC''' has advised businesses to avoid implying ownership where only a license is provided and to ensure material terms are disclosed in a manner consumers will notice.<ref>{{cite web |date=2023-08-01 |title=FTC Business Guidance on Digital Ownership Claims |url=https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/08/cant-lose-what-you-never-had-claims-about-digital-ownership-creation-age-generative-ai |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref>

==Legal and regulatory context==

California’s '''§ 17500.6''' targets the '''use of ownership language''' for revocable digital licenses and provides both government and private enforcement mechanisms. Separately, longstanding federal case law for digital media and software confirms that many transactions are licenses, not sales, which constrains consumers’ rights to resell, lend, or transfer digital goods compared to physical media.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-09-24 |title=AB 2426 (Irwin) – Chapter 513, Statutes of 2024 |url=https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2426/id/2927156 |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=LegiScan}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2010-09-10 |title=Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010) |url=https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2018-12-12 |title=Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 910 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2018) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-2321/16-2321-2018-12-12.html |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Justia}}</ref> Some platforms have begun adding '''point-of-sale license notices''' (e.g., Steam), while others rely on terms-of-service documents and support pages for post-purchase issues.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-10-11 |title=Steam cart disclosure clarifies licensing |url=https://www.techspot.com/news/105108-steam-now-explicitly-states-youre-not-buying-game.html |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=TechSpot}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Google Play Books: Takedowns & removals |url=https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/1062975?hl=en |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Google Help}}</ref>

==See also==

*[[Right to repair]]

*[[Digital rights management]]

*[[First-sale doctrine]]

==References==

~~https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/audible-class-action-alleges-audiobook-purchases-dont-confer-full-ownership/<nowiki/>~~{{~~Ph-I-C~~}}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Audible allegedly misleads consumers into thinking they own the audiobooks they purchase.
+{{StubNotice}}
+{{IncidentCargo|title=Audible allegedly misleads consumers into thinking they own the audiobooks they purchase|company=Audible (Amazon)|date=2025-08-28|}}location=United States|type=Digital ownership / licensing controversy}}
 ==Background==
-Audible has audiobooks available for purchase.
+Audible markets audiobooks for “purchase,” yet its legal terms state that consumers receive a '''limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable license''' to access content rather than full ownership, and that continued access and re-download are not guaranteed.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-02-18 |title=License Agreement |url=https://www.audible.com/legal/license-agreement |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Audible.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2025-09-10 |title=Audible Service Conditions of Use |url=https://www.audible.com/legal/conditions-of-use |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Audible.com |quote=As a convenience to you we may continue to make your purchased content available for re-download… we do not guarantee that such content will be available for re-download.}}</ref>
+In '''California''', the '''Digital Property Rights Transparency Law''' (AB 2426) amended the state’s False Advertising Law by adding '''Business & Professions Code § 17500.6'''. Effective '''January 1, 2025''', sellers may not use terms a reasonable consumer associates with '''unrestricted ownership''' (e.g., “buy,” “purchase”) for digital goods '''unless''' they provide a clear pre-transaction disclosure that the consumer is receiving a license (with a link to the full terms), or obtain the consumer’s affirmative acknowledgment of license restrictions at the time of purchase.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-09-24 |title=AB 2426 (Irwin) – Chapter 513, Statutes of 2024 |url=https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2426/id/2927156 |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=LegiScan}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2024-04-02 |title=Assembly Committee on Privacy & Consumer Protection: Analysis of AB 2426 (Irwin) |url=https://apcp.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2024-03/ab-2426-irwin-apcp-analysis.pdf |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=California State Assembly}}</ref>
+The '''Federal Trade Commission (FTC)''' has separately warned that platforms must be clear about what consumers actually receive when offered digital products described as “bought” or “purchased,” emphasizing that claims implying ownership when only a license is provided can be deceptive.<ref>{{cite web |date=2023-08-01 |title=Can’t lose what you never had: Claims about digital ownership |url=https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/08/cant-lose-what-you-never-had-claims-about-digital-ownership-creation-age-generative-ai |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref>
+Courts have also recognized that many digital transactions confer '''licenses''' rather than ownership, limiting first-sale and resale rights (e.g., ''Vernor v. Autodesk'', 9th Cir. 2010; ''Capitol Records v. ReDigi'', 2d Cir. 2018).<ref>{{cite web |date=2010-09-10 |title=Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010) |url=https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2018-12-12 |title=Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 910 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2018) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-2321/16-2321-2018-12-12.html |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Justia}}</ref>
+==Consumer impact and related incidents==
+Consumers have reported '''purchased titles becoming difficult to find''' or '''unavailable''' in their libraries when licensing or catalog changes occur. Audible’s own help pages acknowledge “missing title” scenarios and provide steps to locate archived or hidden items.<ref>{{cite web |title=Title is missing |url=https://help.audible.com/s/article/title-is-missing?language=en_US |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Audible Help Center}}</ref> Independent accounts describe older purchases not appearing in in-app search results after delisting, contributing to confusion when the storefront uses “buy” language but the underlying transaction grants a license.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-05-21 |title=Audible and the strange case of the disappearing audiobooks |url=https://mikefinnsfiction.com/2024/05/21/audible-and-the-strange-case-of-the-disappearing-audiobooks/ |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Mike Finn’s Fiction}}</ref>
+This ambiguity reflects a wider '''industry pattern'''. For example, '''Valve/Steam''' added a prominent shopping-cart notice in 2024 stating that a purchase of a digital product '''grants a license''', not ownership.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-10-11 |title=Steam now explicitly states you’re not buying the game, just a license |url=https://www.techspot.com/news/105108-steam-now-explicitly-states-youre-not-buying-game.html |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=TechSpot}}</ref> '''Sony PlayStation''' initially announced it would remove previously purchased '''Discovery''' TV content due to licensing, then reversed course after public backlash, illustrating that access to “purchased” media may depend on ongoing licensing arrangements outside consumers’ control.<ref>{{cite web |date=2023-12 |title=PlayStation Video Content (US) legal notice |url=https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psvideocontent/ |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=PlayStation}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2023-12-21 |title=Discovery shows you’ve bought on PlayStation actually won’t be taken away |url=https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/21/24011168/sony-playstation-discovery-shows-not-removed |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=The Verge}}</ref> In gaming, '''Ubisoft''' shut down servers for ''The Crew'' (2014), leaving purchasers unable to play and sparking litigation and preservation debates about digital ownership expectations.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-04-16 |title=Ubisoft is stripping people’s licences for The Crew |url=https://www.pcgamer.com/games/racing/ubisoft-is-stripping-peoples-licences-for-the-crew-weeks-after-its-shutdown-nearly-squandering-hopes-of-private-servers-and-acting-as-a-stark-reminder-of-how-volatile-digital-ownership-is/ |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=PC Gamer}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2024-11-04 |title=Ubisoft sued for shutting down The Crew |url=https://www.polygon.com/gaming/476979/ubisoft-the-crew-shut-down-lawsuit-class-action |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Polygon}}</ref>
-==[Incident]==
+==Timeline==
-{{Ph-I-I}}
-===[Company]'s response===
+*'''2009-07''' – Amazon remotely deletes '''George Orwell’s ''1984''''' and ''Animal Farm'' from Kindles due to rights issues; later settles and promises limits on remote deletions.<ref>{{cite web |date=2009-10-01 |title=Amazon Settles Kindle “1984” Lawsuit |url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/519855/amazon_kindle_1984_lawsuit.html |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=PCWorld}}</ref>
-{{Ph-I-ComR}}
+*'''2010-09''' – ''Vernor v. Autodesk'' (9th Cir.) clarifies license vs. ownership in software resale.<ref>{{cite web |date=2010-09-10 |title=Vernor v. Autodesk |url=https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit}}</ref>
+*'''2018-12''' – ''Capitol Records v. ReDigi'' (2d Cir.) limits first-sale for digital music file transfers.<ref>{{cite web |date=2018-12-12 |title=Capitol Records v. ReDigi |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-2321/16-2321-2018-12-12.html |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Justia}}</ref>
+*'''2023-12''' – PlayStation announces, then reverses, removal of purchased '''Discovery''' TV content.<ref>{{cite web |date=2023-12-21 |title=Discovery shows won’t be removed |url=https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/21/24011168/sony-playstation-discovery-shows-not-removed |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=The Verge}}</ref>
+*'''2024-09-24''' – California '''AB 2426''' is chaptered; effective '''2025-01-01'''.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-09-24 |title=AB 2426 – Chaptered text |url=https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2426/id/2927156 |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=LegiScan}}</ref>
+*'''2025-02-18''' – Audible updates its '''License Agreement''' (explicit license language remains).<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-02-18 |title=License Agreement |url=https://www.audible.com/legal/license-agreement |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Audible.com}}</ref>
+*'''2025-08-28''' – '''Deitrich & Farrell v. Audible, Inc.''' filed in W.D. Wash., alleging violations of AB 2426 and California consumer laws.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-08-28 |title=Deitrich & Farrell v. Audible, Inc. – Class Action Complaint |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.352061/gov.uscourts.wawd.352061.1.0.pdf |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=CourtListener (RECAP)}}</ref>
+==Incident==
+Reports describe consumers believing they '''own''' purchased audiobooks yet encountering '''disappearing titles''', '''re-download limits''', or '''search suppression''' for delisted works. Audible’s help documentation addresses “missing titles,” while independent posts recount library items not surfacing in app search after catalog changes.<ref>{{cite web |title=Title is missing |url=https://help.audible.com/s/article/title-is-missing?language=en_US |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Audible Help Center}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2024-05-21 |title=Audible and the strange case of the disappearing audiobooks |url=https://mikefinnsfiction.com/2024/05/21/audible-and-the-strange-case-of-the-disappearing-audiobooks/ |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Mike Finn’s Fiction}}</ref>  This dynamic mirrors other digital storefronts where “buy” may denote a '''revocable license''' rather than perpetual ownership, a distinction now regulated in California by § 17500.6.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-04-02 |title=AB 2426 Analysis |url=https://apcp.assembly.ca.gov/system/files/2024-03/ab-2426-irwin-apcp-analysis.pdf |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=California Assembly}}</ref>
+==Company response==
+As of the research date, Audible’s publicly available legal pages reflect the company’s position that audiobook “purchases” grant a '''limited, non-transferable license''', and that continued '''re-download is not guaranteed''' if content becomes unavailable. The posted License Agreement shows a last updated date of '''February 18, 2025''' (after AB 2426 took effect), while the Conditions of Use reiterate the lack of a re-download guarantee.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-02-18 |title=License Agreement |url=https://www.audible.com/legal/license-agreement |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Audible.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2025-09-10 |title=Audible Service Conditions of Use |url=https://www.audible.com/legal/conditions-of-use |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Audible.com}}</ref>  No formal press release or public newsroom statement specific to AB 2426 or to the Deitrich/Farrell lawsuit was located in company-facing communications at the time of research.<!-- If a later company statement appears, add with citation. -->
 ==Lawsuit==
-{{Ph-I-L}}
+===Deitrich & Farrell v. Audible, Inc. (W.D. Wash. No. 2:25-cv-01659)===
+On '''August 28, 2025''', plaintiffs '''Jeff Deitrich''' and '''Jessica Farrell''' filed a putative class action against Audible in the '''U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington'''. The complaint alleges that using '''“buy”/“purchase”''' for digital audiobooks without clear point-of-sale disclosure violates '''California Business & Professions Code § 17500.6 (AB 2426)''' and constitutes false advertising and unfair competition under California law. The suit seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorney’s fees, and California class certification.<ref>{{cite web |date=2025-08-28 |title=Deitrich & Farrell v. Audible, Inc. – Class Action Complaint |url=https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.352061/gov.uscourts.wawd.352061.1.0.pdf |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=CourtListener (RECAP)}}</ref>
+===Related Audible litigation (context)===
+*'''Golden Unicorn Enterprises & Big Dog Books v. Audible (S.D.N.Y.)''' – Contract and royalty accounting claims related to the “Great Listen Guarantee” were largely resolved in Audible’s favor by the district court in 2023.<ref>{{cite web |date=2023-01-14 |title=Golden Unicorn Enters. v. Audible, Inc. – Opinion |url=https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/golden-unicorn-enters-v-1068772033 |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=vLex}}</ref>
+*'''Hollis v. Audible (W.D. Wash.)''' – Putative class action alleging expiring '''Audible credits''' violate Washington’s gift certificate law; litigation ongoing as of the research date.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-12-12 |title=Hollis v. Audible, Inc. – Complaint (W.D. Wash.) |url=https://www.classaction.org/media/hollis-v-audible-inc.pdf |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=ClassAction.org (PDF)}}</ref>
+*'''McKee v. Audible (C.D. Cal.)''' – Earlier class action addressing auto-renewal/credits and alleged unauthorized charges resolved by settlement approved in 2020.<ref>{{cite web |date=2017 |title=McKee v. Audible – Complaint (C.D. Cal.) |url=https://www.classaction.org/media/mckee-v-audible.pdf |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=ClassAction.org (PDF)}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2020-12-09 |title=Grant McKee v. Audible, Inc. et al., Final Approval Order |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2%3A2017cv01941/672378/207/ |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Justia}}</ref>
 ==Consumer response==
-{{Ph-I-ConR}}
+Consumer advocates and policymakers have urged clearer disclosures at the point of sale so that the use of “buy” or “purchase” does not mislead consumers when transactions are in fact licenses. The '''FTC''' has advised businesses to avoid implying ownership where only a license is provided and to ensure material terms are disclosed in a manner consumers will notice.<ref>{{cite web |date=2023-08-01 |title=FTC Business Guidance on Digital Ownership Claims |url=https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/08/cant-lose-what-you-never-had-claims-about-digital-ownership-creation-age-generative-ai |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref>
+==Legal and regulatory context==
+California’s '''§ 17500.6''' targets the '''use of ownership language''' for revocable digital licenses and provides both government and private enforcement mechanisms. Separately, longstanding federal case law for digital media and software confirms that many transactions are licenses, not sales, which constrains consumers’ rights to resell, lend, or transfer digital goods compared to physical media.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-09-24 |title=AB 2426 (Irwin) – Chapter 513, Statutes of 2024 |url=https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2426/id/2927156 |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=LegiScan}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2010-09-10 |title=Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010) |url=https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=2018-12-12 |title=Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 910 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2018) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/16-2321/16-2321-2018-12-12.html |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Justia}}</ref> Some platforms have begun adding '''point-of-sale license notices''' (e.g., Steam), while others rely on terms-of-service documents and support pages for post-purchase issues.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-10-11 |title=Steam cart disclosure clarifies licensing |url=https://www.techspot.com/news/105108-steam-now-explicitly-states-youre-not-buying-game.html |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=TechSpot}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Google Play Books: Takedowns & removals |url=https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/1062975?hl=en |access-date=2025-09-29 |website=Google Help}}</ref>
+==See also==
+*[[Right to repair]]
+*[[Digital rights management]]
+*[[First-sale doctrine]]
 ==References==
-https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/audible-class-action-alleges-audiobook-purchases-dont-confer-full-ownership/<nowiki/>{{Ph-I-C}}
+{{reflist}}