Google Denies Refund for Removed Film Purchase

A Reddit user’s complaint about a removed movie purchase has sparked concerns about consumer rights over digital purchases. The user, ugoindownsaka1, 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 catalog.

The live support specialist responded, stating that the movie was bought in 2022, which exceeds Google’s standard 120-day refund window, according to screenshots posted on X by user TolkienWorldG.

Users have taken to the comments to express their frustration, share similar experiences, and 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, this confusion is hardly surprising.

Brookman told Inc. that consumers do not understand that buying content online only means that you can access content for as long as the seller decides.

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.

Brookman argues that the law may not have been sufficient enough to solve the problem. He says that the law is unclear as to what legal rights you have. 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 strong argument that it is illegal.

They were the policy director of the Federal Trade Commission’s office of technology research and investigation. Instances like this have triggered some FTC attention in the past.

In the late 2000s, the FTC sent warning letters to Microsoft and MLB for similar practices. Those cases were closed after both companies offered refunds.

This year, a member of the California State Assembly, Chris Ward, introduced Assembly Bill 1921, which aimed to prevent video game companies from similar action without providing consumer remedy like providing a refund.

Chris Ward said that Californians should not have to sacrifice their privacy, pay manipulated prices, or lose access to products they already purchased simply because corporations prioritize profits over consumers.

Consumer Reports supported the bill but it has since “died” although Brookman 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.

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.