California's false advertising law is a joke

The speaker discusses a California law concerning the sale of digital goods, which mandates that if a product can be revoked by the manufacturer or service provider, this fact must be clearly advertised. The speaker decided to test this law using a specific example: a textbook sold by VitalSource. The textbook offers a "lifetime" option for $120.49, alongside a 180-day option for $64.99. Using a "Consumer Rights Wiki browser extension," the speaker found that "lifetime" access actually means five years of online platform access and the ability to download content to a supported device during that period. This is significantly different from a true "lifetime" purchase, which would imply permanent ownership of a downloadable file like a PDF. The speaker views this discrepancy, where "lifetime" means only five years, as problematic, especially since textbooks are expected to last longer. To test the California law, the speaker asked California residents to submit complaints through the proper channels. One user, after waiting almost a year, received a response from the Office of the Attorney General on May 9th, 2025. The response stated that while complaints are retained and could be useful for future law enforcement actions, the office is prohibited from representing individuals or giving legal advice. It advised the complainant to contact a private attorney, the California State Bar for referrals, or seek free/low-cost legal aid, or consider small claims court. The speaker interprets this response as the state telling taxpayers that if they want consumer rights, they need to hire a private attorney, effectively stating that the Attorney General's office will not actively pursue the complaint. The speaker expresses strong disappointment that it took 11 months to receive such a response, and that no action would be taken against a company seemingly breaking a false advertising law. The law doesn't prohibit selling revocable digital goods; it only requires honest and transparent advertising. The speaker emphasizes that VitalSource's use of "lifetime" is prominently displayed, while the actual terms clarifying its limited duration are deeply hidden within their website. This example was chosen because VitalSource is a major provider of college textbooks, often required by professors, making it a widespread issue. The speaker notes that despite many people, including those who might work in consumer protection, understanding the college textbook scam where minor changes in editions force new purchases, the issue persists. The speaker highlights that even a year later, the detailed explanation of what "lifetime" truly means is still very difficult to find on VitalSource's website. The term "lifetime" is in large letters, but to understand its limitations, one must click on "digital license details" and scroll through small text, which doesn't explicitly state that the product can be taken away. This opacity, requiring users to navigate away from the main product page to find crucial information, is a major point of contention for the speaker. The speaker laments the general ineffectiveness of consumer protection laws, noting that even in states with such laws, consumers are often met with significant delays and unhelpful responses when trying to exercise their rights. The California law, in the speaker's view, is a good piece of potential model federal legislation because it simply demands honesty and transparency in advertising, not a ban on revocable digital goods. The speaker concludes by calling the situation a "joke," reiterating that using "lifetime" prominently without transparently disclosing the ability to revoke access constitutes false advertising under the law.