Audible class action lawsuit

❗Article Status Notice: This Article is a stub

---

This article is underdeveloped, and needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. Learn more ▼

Issues may include:

• This article needs to be expanded to provide meaningful information
• This article requires additional verifiable evidence to demonstrate systemic impact
• More documentation is needed to establish how this reflects broader consumer protection concerns
• The connection between individual incidents and company-wide practices needs to be better established
• The article is simply too short, and lacks sufficient content

How you can help:

• Add documented examples with verifiable sources
• Provide evidence of similar incidents affecting other consumers
• Include relevant company policies or communications that demonstrate systemic practices
• Link to credible reporting that covers these issues
• Flesh out the article with relevant information

This notice will be removed once the article is sufficiently developed. Once you believe the article is ready to have its notice removed, please visit the Moderator's noticeboard, or the Discord (join here) and post to the #appeals channel, or mention its status on the article's talk page.

location=United States|type=Digital ownership / licensing controversy}}

Background

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.

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.

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.

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).

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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

Timeline

• 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.
• 2010-09 – Vernor v. Autodesk (9th Cir.) clarifies license vs. ownership in software resale.
• 2018-12 – Capitol Records v. ReDigi (2d Cir.) limits first-sale for digital music file transfers.
• 2023-12 – PlayStation announces, then reverses, removal of purchased Discovery TV content.
• 2024-09-24 – California AB 2426 is chaptered; effective 2025-01-01.
• 2025-02-18 – Audible updates its License Agreement (explicit license language remains).
• 2025-08-28 – Deitrich & Farrell v. Audible, Inc. filed in W.D. Wash., alleging violations of AB 2426 and California consumer laws.

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. 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.

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. 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

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.

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.
• 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.
• McKee v. Audible (C.D. Cal.) – Earlier class action addressing auto-renewal/credits and alleged unauthorized charges resolved by settlement approved in 2020.

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.

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. 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.

See also

• Right to repair
• Digital rights management
• First-sale doctrine