I'm afraid you might be right about 2, but wrt 1 I think you can absolutely sue your way out of a contract if it was made after blatantly false advertising, no?
That’s correct. Am a lawyer, not giving legal advice.
A very common term in contracts is what is called a merger clause, and what it says essentially is that the contract forms the entire agreement of the parties, and that any oral representations not contained in the contract are irrelevant and to be completely disregarded. But there are courts that hold that a merger clause is not absolute and has its limits.
Make no mistake, contracts and their waivers are powerful. However, there are lots of court rulings where the courts have held that you can’t say X explicitly and have the contract say Y. In those situations, the courts will often enforce the X promise.
But then you get into a practical issue here. If you were an effected individual, you’re going to have to hire a lawyer to make that argument, and even with $25,000 on the line, that’s probably not a situation where the math works out.
A very common term in contracts is what is called a merger clause, and what it says essentially is that the contract forms the entire agreement of the parties, and that any oral representations not contained in the contract are irrelevant and to be completely disregarded. But there are courts that hold that a merger clause is not absolute and has its limits.
There are also places, like here in the UK, where statutory consumer rights law explicitly says that trying to hide behind those clauses doesn't stand up. You can't have a salesperson answer a consumer's questions about a product, and then when the consumer finds the product doesn't match the information they were given after buying it, argue that your Ts & Cs say anything the salesperson said before the purchase has no weight. Moreover, if you make a habit of trying, you're likely to attract not just action by the consumer themselves but also the attention of regulators who may be considerably more powerful than any individual consumer.
Well, that's what the court case is about. I would certainly _like_ for the result of the case to be either Apple (Amazon, et al) stops using the word "Buy" in their apps, or better yet but even more unlikely, for the companies to start providing media as DRM-free downloads.
But like I said: the cynic in me says neither is going to happen.
In the context of "as a direct consequence of this lawsuit." Which, y'know, is pretty obvious from the parent comment it's a reply to?
Given downloads are possible even with DRM, that isn't even raised in the suit itself. The lawsuit hinges on the loss of availability of further streaming of the titles.
