No Reasonable Consumer
On August 2020, a case was brought against Apple by David Andino. Andino claimed that Apple misled consumers by telling them that the content available on their iTunes stores was owned by them once purchased, but that the reality was that Apple and the publishers of the content still owned the content, as they were capable of removing their content and consumers access to that content at any time.
Apples response? ‘No reasonable consumer would believe that purchased content on the iTunes store would remain on the iTunes platform indefinitely’.
Really.
There are a litany of problems with Apples response, not least of which is the condescending tone with which they mock the plaintiff in this case. The claim that no reasonable consumer would believe that they owned this content is, in and of itself, gaslighting of the highest order. Andino is 100% correct that the assumption from many consumers is that they have permanently gained ownership over the digital content they purchased. After all, this is how most purchased content has always worked.
Imagine if you bought a VHS tape, brought it home, and put it on your shelf. Would it be reasonable to find that the tape had been erased when you attempted to watch it years later? No, right? Obviously not. What about a record? Do those expire? No? So WHY in the world would a consumer assume that the digital purchase they made from the iTunes store would be capable of disappearing? Simply because it’s digital? Or is it because it’s sourced from Apple? Is Apples argument simply: 'nothing we make lasts very long, so assuming it will is the fault of the purchaser’ - I am very sure they would never admit that their products have a pre-determined shelf life, despite the multitude of results that say otherwise.
No, I see something much more sinister going on - Apple is making this argument because, despite its spuriousness, they have the legal capital to fight the lawsuit - if they lose, they pay this one-off fine for Andino and they keep doing what they are doing (after all, the vast majority of Apple users will keep on buying their products even if the products physically harm them or waste their money). At best, they may win, and if they do, the argument that 'no reasonable consumer will believe x’ will be their go-to court-based gaslight for anyone who dares attempt to eek out the full value of their purchase from the company.
There is a different way. Don’t be a reasonable consumer. Be fucking unreasonable. This isn’t just an Apple issue - How many times have we as consumers been made to take a beating from a company simply because we didn't have the resources to make them honor their agreement? Companies are famous for using their profits and resources as a beating stick for unruly consumers. They are legally protected (in many scenarios) from being held liable for making mistakes that you and I would easily go to jail for making. Yet they are able to call themselves individuals when it comes to paying their fair share or operating in this country as a special interest.
Fuck that. If the burden of their argument rests on us being reasonable, stop being reasonable. Demand unreasonable things from companies. They have proven that they are absolutely willing to do the same to you - in fact, they operate under the assumption that they aren't held to reasonable standards, either by consumers or by the law.
So let’s stop being reasonable1. Demand refunds. Skirt policies. Share logins. Demand unreasonable solutions when they make mistakes. Don’t give them cover for any small violation: Demand disproportionate solutions for every slight. Return products after using them for 29 days. Price match. Buy used. Use VPN’s. Leave bad reviews. Take samples. Share plates. Use and abuse every single tool available to you to spend the least amount of money possible for every single company2 you interact with, because you can be damn sure they are doing the exact same thing to you. They are simply betting you’re too 'reasonable’ to do it back.