Amazon’s ‘1984′ deletion lawsuit settled in court
It has been known for a while now that Amazon compensated those Kindle users who had ‘1984′ deleted off of their Kindles by offering affected users a new copy of George Orwell’s novel or a $30 gift certificate. What hasn’t made the news, until now, is the status of the lawsuit brought on by student Justin Gawronski who not only lost the ‘1984′ novel, but also the notes he had taken on the Kindle for a class assignment.
According to a post on technology blog Ars Technica the lawsuit has been settled because the offer made by Amazon to all customers affected by the deletion is enough that the lawsuit is no longer worth pursuing:
In a series of stipulations, the parties agree that the new refund offer left Gawronski feeling he no longer had a case: “Plaintiffs believe they would not likely be able to certify classes under Rule 23(b)(3) because of Amazon’s offer to fully reimburse affected consumers for all Subject Works previously removed by Amazon from Devices and to restore notes and annotations.”
Additionally, Amazon also changed its deletion policy to terms that are much more detailed and only lets Amazon delete content under very strict conditions:
Amazon’s attorneys agreed to legally binding terms that describe its content deletion policy. When it comes to blog and periodical content, as well as software, Amazon retains the right to perform a remote delete. But when it comes to books, deletions will only occur under a limited number of circumstances: failed credit card transactions, judicial orders, malware, or the permission of the user.
It should also be noted that Amazon will be paying Gawronski’s legal fees.
I think the incident has finally been laid to rest, and Amazon is happy to have the embarrassing event behind them. However, a part of me also thinks the lawsuit should have gone forward, not for any financial gains on behalf of the plaintiffs, but to set a legal precident that taking something back after it has been legally purchased is a big no-no. This assumes that Amazon loses the lawsuit.
But such a precident would be important in keeping other digital content providers from trying to get away with the same tactics Amazon used. Furthermore, it’d make it more difficult (at least here in the United States) for Amazon to be forced to delete content based on political or religious grounds.
Because I feel bad about always badmouthing Amazon about their Kindle (I still love buying physical products from them) I should also point out that Apple (yes, I’m a fanboy) has been accused of having a ‘killswitch’ for the iPhone and iPod Touch that would let Apple remotely disable third-party apps.
There isn’t a lot of confirmed information about Apple’s own remote deletion policy, so I’m treading carefully here. The only reason I can see that any company would need to remotely delete anything off of an electronic device is in the case of malware or viruses (not sure about the difference) infecting the digital content and potentially harming/ruining the electronic device. The only exception would be under a judicial order.
In other words, companies like Amazon and even Apple should treat digital products like physical products. Once they are purchased by the consumer, then that’s it – hands off!
Do you think the Amazon settlement is a fair deal? Should the lawsuit have gone forward anyway based on principle? Leave a comment below and share your thoughts.
Related posts
- UPDATE: Lawsuit filed against Amazon.com for shady POD policy
- Almost 2 months later, Amazon offers compensation for deleted Orwell titles
- Amazon Kindle: You only “rent” the content, you don’t own it
- Amazon deletes Orwell titles from customers Kindles
- Will the FTC clamp down on DRM?
Read More: Technology, The Interwebs, eBooks
