A “reasonable consumer” understands that when buying something, “they own it unless or until they return it or otherwise dispose of it” but not so with content purchased from Amazon Prime Video. So asserted eight California and New York plaintiffs in their opposition Friday (docket 2:22-cv-00401) in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle to Amazon’s motion to dismiss their class action for failure to state a claim.

Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Plaintiff Marcus Baker’s complaint against Match Group for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) should be dismissed because he breached his agreement to bring his claims exclusively in small claims court, said Match’s Friday response in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago (docket 1:22-cv-06924). Alternatively, Match moved for the class action to be transferred to the U.S. District Court for Northern Texas, said its memorandum of law in support of the motions.

U.S. District Court Judge Amos Mazzant for Eastern Texas signed an order Friday (docket 4:22-cv-00760) denying defendant T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss AT&T's application for preliminary injunction in a case over alleged false advertising (see 2211020003).

TRENTON -- New Jersey justices challenged Altice on its claim that a state requirement to prorate cable bills is impermissible rate regulation preempted by the Cable Act. The state Supreme Court heard oral argument Tuesday on the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities and Division of Rate Counsel's appeal of a lower court’s ruling for Altice. Justices noted the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maine’s similar rule applying to customers who end service before the month is up.

The U.S. District Court for Northern California’s “change” theory, applied in SaurikIT v. Apple, is “tantamount to the idea that because a business has committed an antitrust violation before, it can continue to commit the same antitrust violation with impunity.” So argued SaurikIT, parent of the Cydia App Store, in the opening brief of its 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court appeal (docket 22-16527) of the district court’s May dismissal of certain claims barred by the statute of limitations.

Security camera company Arlo Technologies made false and misleading representations when it took away security camera features customers paid for, alleged a class action Thursday in U.S. District Court for Western Michigan.

T-Mobile’s assignment of sublease rights to Crown Castle and in turn to Dish Network without notifying Academy Medical prevented Academy “from exercising its contractual right to object to the sublease,” alleged the property owner in a counterclaim Thursday (docket 1:22-cv-00910) in U.S. District Court for New Mexico.

Defendant Voyager Labs, beginning no later than July, developed, distributed and used surveillance software that relied on fake accounts and “unauthorized automated means” to scrape data from Facebook and Instagram, and other websites such as Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn and Telegram, alleged Meta in a complaint Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-00154) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco.

Communications Decency Act Section 230 protects YouTube from liability for sharing terror-related content, and if those protections are eliminated, the internet could become a “litigation minefield,” Google argued before the Supreme Court Thursday in Gonzalez v. Google (docket 21-1333) (see 2212290055).