Criticism of Netflix

Netflix is an American global provider of streaming films and television series. Since its launch in 1997, it has been at the center of numerous legal issues and controversies.

Accessibility

On March 11, 2011, Don Cullen filed a national class-action lawsuit[1] against Netflix alleging that the service failed to closed caption its streaming video library and had misled deaf and hard of hearing customers. In June 2011, the National Association of the Deaf represented by the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) filed a lawsuit against Netflix under the Americans with Disabilities Act.[2] On November 11, 2011, the court denied Netflix a motion to dismiss the case.[3]

In October 2012, the parties agreed to a settlement, under which Netflix agreed to pay $755,000 in legal fees, caption its entire library by 2014, and have captions available for all new content within 7 days by 2016.[4] In April 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unpublished decision ruling that the ADA did not apply to Netflix in this case, as it is "not connected to any actual, physical place" and thus not a "place of public accommodation" that applies to the Act.[5]

In July 2012, Netflix formed an experimental project to crowdsource the closed-captioning effort using the Amara (formerly Universal Subtitles) platform.[6] However, this proved problematic in the face of claims that crowdsourced subtitles, regardless of whether they are transcriptions or translations, are derivative works which infringe copyright if created or distributed without consent from the film's copyright owner.[7] Amara operates under DMCA safe-harbor provisions which indemnify it from secondary copyright infringement lawsuits over user-uploaded content, and presumably Netflix would not publish any subtitles produced by this effort without authorization. Netflix stated it is not committed to using any subtitles produced by the crowdsourcing project.[6] In October 2012, Netflix was found to be offering the television series Andromeda to customers in Finland with unauthorized subtitles from the fansub scene.[8][9] When confronted, Netflix apologized and promised to remove the unauthorized translations but did not explain how the content came to be offered in the first place, or whether other potentially copyright-infringing subtitles exist in the company's repertoire.[8]

Netflix has still faced criticism over the quality of subtitles on some of its content and original productions; the service's video player contains a function allowing users to report issues with captioning. In one notable instance in 2018, Queer Eye contained sentences of dialogue missed by the subtitles, and censoring of expletives that were not censored in the audio. Netflix corrected these subtitles after receiving criticism via social media.[10][11]

In May 2020, a scene from Back to the Future Part II involving the Oh LàLà adult magazine cover that Marty McFly discovers and mistakes it for a stolen sports almanac that he traveled back in time to collect and two lines from McFly were censored, which led to criticism from film preservationists and fans alike.[12] Because of this, Netflix quickly restored the original scene after hearing the issue from co-writer Bob Gale, mentioning that it was apparently "a foreign version which he or Robert Zemeckis didn't even knew existed, for some country that had a problem with the magazine cover". He even asked that the studio destroy the censored print because "Netflix does not edit films — they only run the versions that are supplied to them."[13]

Award eligibility

Steven Spielberg—governor of the directors branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)—has questioned whether Netflix's feature films should be eligible for Academy Award nominations. While Netflix had previously given its theatrical acquisitions a simultaneous release in theaters and streaming, Roma was the first under a new policy to give them at least a three-week theatrical run before their streaming release.[14] The Academy's official rules only require that a film be screened theatrically in the city of Los Angeles for seven days, with at least three public showings per-day, in order to be eligible for an Oscar nomination. The eligibility criteria do allow for simultaneous releases on non-theatrical platforms.[15]

Spielberg argued that films "that are just given token qualifications in a couple of theaters for less than a week" shouldn't qualify. Following the 91st Academy Awards (where Roma became the first film distributed by a streaming service to be nominated for Best Picture, and won Best Foreign Language Film and two other awards), a spokesperson for Spielberg's studio Amblin Partners stated that he "feels strongly about the difference between the streaming and theatrical situation", and would address the issue at the Academy's next board of governors meeting in April 2019.[16][17][18]

Critics argued that Roma had an unfair advantage, singling out the service's wide availability, refusal to report box office numbers, disrespect of the industry's standard release windows with only three weeks of exclusive theatrical play (although it is not uncommon for some nominees to only receive the week-long minimum run), and excessive marketing spend (with reports ranging between $25 and $50 million, although its Oscars marketing was rolled into Netflix's overall marketing budget).[19] Due to its contravention of the standard three-month windows used by all major distributors, national cinema chains have refused to carry Netflix's theatrical releases. Netflix defended its distribution model, arguing that it was devoted to "[providing] access for people who can't always afford, or live in towns without, theaters. Letting everyone, everywhere enjoy releases at the same time. Giving filmmakers more ways to share art. These things are not mutually exclusive."[14]

The U.S. Justice Department warned the Academy that attempts to change its rules to discriminate against Netflix and other streaming platforms could violate antitrust law, as the parent companies of the traditional major studios (especially, in particular, AT&T and Disney) have been making investments into streaming services that directly compete with them.[20] At its meeting, the Academy voted against making any changes to its eligibility criteria, but AMPAS president John Bailey did state that the organization would "further study the profound changes occurring in our industry".[15][21]

Spielberg missed the meeting due to his ongoing work on a remake of West Side Story; in a remark to The New York Times, Spielberg stated that while people should still have access to theatrical releases due to the communal experience that they provide, they should, at the same time, be able to "find their entertainment in any form or fashion that suits them", and that "what really matters to me is a great story and everyone should have access to great stories."[22][23]

Broadband and energy consumption

On March 18, 2020, Thierry Breton, the European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services urged streaming services including Netflix to cut back their service to limit the stress on Europe's broadband networks. Confinement measures taken during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic increased pressure on the networks with people both working and looking for entertainment at home.[24] Netflix responded by agreeing to reduce its streaming rate in the European Union countries by 25% for 30 days. Although the streaming rate will be cut by 25%, users will still be able to stream in HD and 4K with reduced image quality.[25]

Circumvention of geoblocking
See also: VPN blocking § Netflix

More than 30 million Netflix subscribers use the service via a proxy server or virtual private network (VPN); doing so can make a user appear to be located in a country other than the one they are actually in, thus allowing them to use the service to access content that Netflix does not offer in their region, due to geographical licensing restrictions. It is unclear whether accessing geo-blocked content via VPN violates local copyright laws, but content providers and other broadcasters have asserted that it is illegal because it infringes local rights to content that may have been sold to a competitor.[26][27][28][29] GlobalWebIndex showed about 20 million of such VPN users came from China alone.[30][31] As of November 2013, Canadian Netflix offered 3,600 titles compared to the U.S. service which had more than 10,000 which results in Canadians using VPNs so they can access the larger U.S. content selection.[32]

In a leaked e-mail revealed by the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack in 2014, Sony Pictures Television's president of international distribution, Keith LeGoy, described VPN usage of Netflix as being "semi-sanctioned" piracy, and he criticized the company for not taking further steps to detect these users and restrict their access to content Netflix had not licensed for their region.[27][31]

In response, on January 14, 2016, Netflix announced its intent to strengthen measures to restrict access to unlicensed material, by viewers using VPNs or proxies.[33]

In December 2019, users who were on standard IPV4 IP Addresses and using US based ISPs began to see the "You seem to be using an unblocker or proxy " error. Online chat with Netflix support revealed that Netflix no longer supports IPV4 IP addresses.[34]

Content issues

13 Reasons Why

The 2017 Netflix original series 13 Reasons Why (about a teenager who kills herself and leaves behind tapes explaining her action) was criticized for romanticizing, sensationalizing, and increasing interest in suicide (especially given a recent increase in suicide deaths among teenagers), and "glorified and glamorized" issues such as depression and post-traumatic stress.[35][36][37][38][39] Netflix did respond to the controversy by adding additional viewer advisories, and providing links to suicide prevention resources.[40][41] On July 16, 2019, Netflix announced that it had edited the first-season finale of the series to remove the scene that depicted the main character's suicide, stating that "as we prepare to launch Season 3 later this summer, we've been mindful about the ongoing debate around the show", and adding that "we've heard from many young people that 13 Reasons Why encouraged them to start conversations about difficult issues like depression and suicide and get help—often for the first time".[42]

New Zealand's film ratings board OFLC created a new "RP18" rating (recommending parental guidance for viewers under 18) in response to 13 Reasons Why, arguing that although it contained graphic and objectionable portrayals of the act, "these issues need to be talked about in a way that is informed and safe – parents, guardians and other adults need to have open conversations with teens about the issues raised by the show."[43]

Depiction of death camps in Poland

The makers of the 2019 documentary The Devil Next Door included a map made in 1985 which attempted to show where Nazi death camps stood relative to modern Polish borders. In response to complaints by Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, Netflix agreed to insert additional text emphasizing that such camps were in occupied territory. This move was criticized for potentially legitimizing a 2018 Polish law which restricts how one may refer to the Holocaust.[44]

Insensitive depictions of Jesus

In December 2019, Netflix announced a special titled The First Temptation of Christ, which depicts Jesus, the son of God, as a homosexual figure who has a relationship with an outspoken satirical atheist named Orlando. The series is a work of Porta dos Fundos, a Brazilian comedy group who became prominent through social media. The depiction of a gay Jesus and the scenes in which Mary is seen smoking weed caused outrage by many Netflix users resulting in requests by the Christian community to suspend the special series from the platform.[45] Jesus' drunken depiction in The Last Hangover also a work by Porta dos Fundos, has also caused outrage.

Portrayal of smoking

A July 2019 report by the anti-tobacco group Truth Initiative highlighted the amount of smoking portrayed in House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black as higher than on broadcast television, and noted nearly double the number of references to smoking between season 1 and season 2 of Stranger Things. In response to the report, Netflix stated they will make efforts to cut back on the depiction of smoking in its original series.[46]

Use of disaster footage

In late 2018, Netflix faced criticism for its use of stock footage from the 2013 Lac-Mégantic rail disaster in multiple original productions, including the series Travelers, and the film Bird Box. The footage was subsequently replaced in both works.[47]

Promotion of pseudoscience

In February 2019, Gwyneth Paltrow's lifestyle brand Goop signed a deal to produce a wellness-themed documentary series for Netflix. This led to widespread criticism of the streaming company for giving Paltrow a platform to promote her company, which has been criticized for making unsubstantiated claims about the effectiveness of the health treatments and products it promotes. Multiple critics argued that Netflix's move was "a win for pseudoscience."[48][49][50][51] Once The Goop Lab was available for review, numerous media outlets published harsh criticism of Netflix's decision to promote Goop:

  • Showbiz Cheatsheet published "The Goop Lab Isn’t The First Time Netflix Has Forced You to Pay for Dangerous Opinions", which said that "Netflix documentaries have become a successful niche for the platform, but since they tackle real-life subjects, caveats should arguably be placed on-screen. Such is the case for health documentaries there, including the controversial and upcoming The Goop Lab that many deem an infomercial for Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop. Health documentaries pushing pseudoscience have become a cottage industry lately, which essentially means Netflix is making subscribers pay for opinions deemed a little bit dangerous... The least Netflix could do is place a message of warning saying the science behind these documentaries isn’t necessarily proven. Doing so will give a caveat before going in and taking them as a new form of health gospel."[52]
  • Patheos published "Gwyneth Paltrow's The Goop Lab Is Unscientific Garbage. Then It Gets Worse" which said "Shame on Netflix for promoting this harmful nonsense. Getting a few more eyeballs and subscriptions is apparently worth the cost of all the damage this show will do to public health if viewers take any of it seriously."[53]
  • Wired UK wrote several reviews critical of both The Goop Lab,[54][55] and of Netflix for creating it, saying "Think Goop is bad? It's only the tip of Netflix's pseudoscience iceberg".[56]

The accusations resurfaced later in 2020 with the addition of another Netflix Original, Down to Earth with Zac Efron[57] Writing for the McGill Office for Science and Society, Jonathan Jarry argued the show is basically an advertisement for Darin Olien and the pseudoscientific products he espouses, from cancer-preventing superfoods to self-pasteurized raw goat milk. Jarry states that "the show consistently uses genuine ecological concerns to make us accept claims that do not hold water."[58]

Previously, Netflix had been criticized for offering content by independent producers that presents wellness pseudoscience and conspiracy theories as true.[56] Health professionals have quickly corrected several arguments made by the 2017 documentary What the Health, arguing the movie exaggerates the negative effects of eating eggs and downplays the risks of a diet rich in sugar.[59] The Australian Medical Association (AMA) called on Netflix to remove from its catalog The Magic Pill, a documentary narrated by celebrity chef Pete Evans claiming a ketogenic diet helps cure a variety of diseases, such as asthma and cancer. While some studies hint that some benefits can be gained from the diet, they did not support the claims made in the movie and the AMA insisted that promoting the diet without the supervision of qualified health professionals posed grave risks of developing nutritional deficiencies.[60]

Cuties

Cuties, a 2020 French film distributed internationally by Netflix, drew controversy after its release due to claims it sexualized children, particularly in response to the poster originally displayed on the streaming platform, which was subsequently changed.[61][62]

Politicians and government officials in Turkey and the U.S. made various complaints, including calling for the investigation of "possible violations of child exploitation and child pornography laws" and asking for the film to be voluntarily removed by Netflix. U.S. Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri informally invited Netflix to discuss the film "before Congress" in a tweet.[63] U.S. Senator Mike Lee of Utah sent a letter directly to Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, and requested "an explanation on [Hasting's] views as to whether or not the potential exploitation of minors in this film constitutes criminal behavior".[64] U.S. House Representative and former Democratic primary contender Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii explicitly called the film "child porn" and that it would "whet the appetite of pedophiles [and] help fuel the child sex trafficking trade."[65] U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas sent a letter to the Department of Justice to "investigate whether Netflix, its executives, or the filmmakers violated any federal laws against the production and distribution of child pornography."[66] Christine Pelosi, daughter of U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, stated that Cuties "hypersexualizes girls my daughter's age no doubt to the delight of pedophiles like the ones I prosecuted."[67][68] Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Representative Jim Banks of Indiana also both criticised the film in separate statements calling for the DOJ to take legal action against Netflix, with Cotton saying "There's no excuse for the sexualization of children, and Netflix's decision to promote the film 'Cuties' is disgusting at best and a serious crime at worst".[69] Representatives Ken Buck of Colorado and Andy Biggs of Arizona also called for the Department of Justice to investigate.[70] The state attorneys general of Ohio, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas have also written a letter to Netflix asking for removal of the film.[71][14]

The film's director, Maïmouna Doucouré, stated in defense of the film that it "tries to show that our children should have the time to be children, and we as adults should protect their innocence and keep them innocent as long as possible."[72][73][66] She also stated, "The problem, of course, is that they [preteens] are not women, and they don't realize what they are doing.... The girls [portrayed in the film performing in the local dance contest] don't have the maturity, however, to realize what their gestures and dance moves look like to the audience."[74]

On September 23, 2020, Netflix was indicted by a Texas grand jury for "promotion of lewd visual material depicting a child".[75]

Dynamic queue, subscription, and delivery methods

On April 4, 2006, Netflix filed a patent infringement lawsuit in which it demanded a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Blockbuster's online DVD rental subscription program violated two patents held by Netflix. The first cause of action alleged Blockbuster's infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,024,381 (issued April 4, 2006; only hours before the lawsuit was filed) by copying the "dynamic queue" of DVDs available for each customer, Netflix's method of using the ranked preferences in the queue to send DVDs to subscribers, and Netflix's method permitting the queue to be updated and reordered.[76] The second cause of action alleged infringement of Patent No. 6,584,450 (issued June 24, 2003), which covers in less detail the subscription rental service as well as Netflix's methods of communication and delivery.[77] The dispute ended a year later, on June 25, 2007, with both companies declining to disclose the terms of their legal settlement, except for a statement by Blockbuster that it would not have a major impact on its future financial performance.[78][79] Blockbuster also said that the company planned to close 282 stores that year to shift focus to its online service. The company had already closed 290 stores in 2006.[80]

In fall 2006, Blockbuster signed a deal with The Weinstein Company that gave it the exclusive rental rights to the studio's films beginning on January 1, 2007.[81] This agreement forced Netflix to obtain copies from mass merchants or retailers, instead of directly from the studio.[82] Netflix had speculated that the effect of the Blockbuster-Weinstein agreement could result in higher rental costs and/or fewer copies of the studio's movies, which would limit the number of each movie's DVDs that would be available to subscribers at any one time.[83] As of June 2007, Netflix continues to make available Weinstein movies, including Unknown, School For Scoundrels and Harsh Times, among others. The first-sale doctrine allows Netflix and other video rental businesses to offer movies released by The Weinstein Company.

Employee poaching

In September 2016, Netflix was sued by 20th Century Fox for tortious interference, alleging that the company "unlawfully target[ed], recruit[ed], and poach[ed] valuable Fox executives by illegally inducing them to break their employment contracts with Fox to work at Netflix." The suit in particular referred to Netflix's hiring of Tara Flynn and Marco Waltenberg, who were still under contract with Fox.[84] In October 2016, Netflix filed a counter-suit against 20CF, alleging that the fixed-term contracts being used by Fox were in violation of the California Business and Professions Code, for "facilitating and enforcing a system that restrains employee mobility, depresses compensation levels, and creates unlawful barriers to entry for Netflix and others competing in the film and television production business". Netflix described the agreement as "a form of involuntary servitude".[85][86][87] Viacom sued Netflix for the same reason in October 2018, over its hiring of Momita Sengupta.[88]

In June 2019, judge Marc Gross issued a tentative ruling holding that Netflix "intentionally interfered with Fox's contracts with Waltenberg and Flynn" to "further its own economic interest at Fox's expense", but that Fox had failed to present any evidence of actual damages against the company. The case was to go to trial in January 2020.[89][90]

In December 2019, Gross issued a final ruling barring Netflix from soliciting employees under fixed-term employment contracts with Fox, or inducing them to violate such contracts.[91]

Linux support

Netflix formerly supported online streaming only on Microsoft Windows, macOS, iOS and Android, relying on Microsoft Silverlight. Partly due to digital rights management issues, despite the open-source implementation of Silverlight known as Moonlight, this has created problems for users of fully open source versions of Linux and similar operating systems.[92] Though Google's partially proprietary Android and Chrome OS platforms are essentially based upon Linux and other free software infrastructure, Netflix did not provide any crossover support for using its proprietary components to stream any of its content upon more free systems, such as Ubuntu and Fedora, although this changed in October 2014.

On August 9, 2011, Netflix released a Google Chrome web store item for Chrome OS, Mac OS, and Windows; however, it did not initially enable Netflix streaming on Linux machines. On Linux systems running the Chrome browser, the extension simply redirects users to view Netflix.com.[93]

In June 2014, Netflix chose to switch from Silverlight to HTML5 playback using Encrypted Media Extensions (EME), since then, the extensions were added to Microsoft's Internet Explorer on Windows 8.1 and Apple's Safari on OS X Yosemite.[94] It was implemented in Google Chrome on all platforms shortly afterward.

As of October 10, 2014 multiple versions of Linux including Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS claim support for Netflix in Google Chrome version 37 or newer.[95][96] The website for PCWorld also states that users of other Linux distributions such as version 17 of Linux Mint have been successfully using Netflix via Google Chrome without any special workarounds.[97]

Third-party solutions

As of May 9, 2011, Google had initially released plans for a plugin for the Chrome browser and Chrome OS which would allow Netflix streaming, including traditional Linux users.[98]

On November 15, 2012, patches to the Wine compatibility layer to make viewing of Netflix on Linux and similar systems were made available.[99]

On November 18, 2012, a PPA and installation files were made publicly available making the installation and use of Netflix much easier for users of Ubuntu 12.04 and possibly other distributions.[100]

On August 8, 2013, software repositories were made publicly available making possible the usage of the Windows Silverlight plugin in Linux-native web browsers using Wine.[101][102] Previous Linux Netflix support required running the entire Firefox web browser through the Wine compatibility layer.[100]

Recommendation algorithm and the "Netflix Prize"
Main article: Netflix Prize

In 2006, Netflix held the first Netflix Prize competition to find a better program to predict user preferences and beat its existing Netflix movie recommendation system, known as Cinematch, by at least 10%. CEO Hastings did not necessarily expect a lot of quick progress towards the prize,[103] "We thought we built the best darn thing ever."[103] But by June 2007, Hastings said the competition is "three-quarters of the way there in three-quarters of a year."[104] Three teams – an AT&T Research Team called BellKor, commendo's team BigChaos, and Pragmatic Theory – combined to win the 2009 grand prize competition for $1 million. The winning team, called BellKor's Pragmatic Chaos, used machine learning techniques to find that, for example, the rating system people use for older movies is very different from that used for a movie they just saw. The mood of the day made a difference also; for example, Friday ratings were different from Monday morning ratings.[105]

In 2010, Netflix canceled a running contest to improve the company's recommendation algorithm due to privacy concerns: under the terms of the competition, contestants were given access to customer rental data, which the company had purportedly anonymized. However, it was discovered that even this anonymized dataset could, in fact, identify a user personally. Netflix was sued by KamberLaw L.L.C. in Doe v Netflix[106] and ended the contest after reaching a deal with the FTC.[107]

Releasing this week

The Netflix website at one time featured a list of titles, "Releasing This Week" (RTW), that enabled customers to easily view new DVDs the company planned for rental release each week.[108] On December 21, 2007, the company removed the link to the page without notice and replaced it with a slider system showing only four previously released movies at a time. The new page, called "Popular New Releases", does not list newly released DVDs for rental.[109] The listing of new releases was still active,[108] although there is was menu option that links to the page.

On January 1, 2008, a Netflix employee unofficially stated on the Netflix Community Blog that customers used the RTW page to add newly released movies to the top of their queues, then complained about delays in receiving them after demand outstripped the supply of DVDs on hand. By removing the page, Netflix sought to quell complaints that these movies were not readily available. Critics, however, suggested this was just another Netflix attempt at throttling.[110]

Removal of social networking feature

Beginning in 2004, Netflix subscribers could use a feature that allowed them to interact with friends who were also members. This feature was meant to tap into the growing popularity of social networking. With this feature, users could see how their friends rated a movie on that movie's page; view what DVDs their friends were renting; and allow them to leave their friends notes with film recommendations.[111][112]

In March 2010, as part of a redesign of its movie-details pages, the Friends feature began to be phased out. Users could no longer see their friends' ratings on movie pages, and what remained of the friends section was moved to a small link at the bottom of each page. The initial announcement about the redesign on Netflix's official blog made no reference to any changes to the Friends feature.[113] Hundreds of angry users posted negative comments, and the feedback prompted Netflix's Vice President of Product Management, Todd Yellin, to post a follow-up statement. While apologizing for poor communication about the changes, Yellin stated that the Friends feature would continue to be phased out, citing figures that only 2% of members used the feature and the company's limited resources to maintain the service.[111][112][114] Netflix users also began using the movie-reviews section of the website to post comments protesting against the changes.[115]

Throttling of DVDs by mail

Netflix's DVD allocation policy – referred to by many as "throttling" – gives priority shipping and selection to customers who rent fewer discs per month. Higher volume renters may see some of their selections delayed, routed elsewhere, or sent out of order.[116] Netflix claimed that "the large majority of our subscribers are able to receive their movies in about one business day following our shipment of the requested movie from their local distribution center."[117] However, not all shipments came from the subscriber's local distribution center, and shipments from distant centers were often delayed, as well.

In September 2004, a consumer class action lawsuit, Frank Chavez v. Netflix, Inc.,[118] was brought against Netflix in San Francisco Superior Court. The suit alleged false advertising in relation to claims of "unlimited rentals" with "one-day delivery." In January 2005, Netflix changed its terms of use to acknowledge "throttling" (Mike Kaltschnee, owner of the Hacking Netflix blog, says Netflix calls this practice "smoothing" internally).[119]

In October 2005, Netflix proposed a settlement for those who had enrolled as a paid Netflix member prior to January 15, 2005. These earlier members would be able to renew their subscriptions with a one-month free membership, and those early members with current subscriptions would receive a one-month free upgrade to the next-highest membership level. Netflix's settlement denied allegations of any wrongdoing, and the case did not reach a legal judgment. Netflix estimated the settlement cost approximately US$4 million, which included up to US$2.53 million to cover plaintiff lawyer fees. A controversial aspect of the settlement offer was that the customer's account would continue at the renewed or upgraded membership level after the free month provided by the settlement, with customers being charged accordingly unless they opted out after the month-long free period ended. After Trial Lawyers for Public Justice filed a challenge to the proposed settlement[120] and the Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus brief urging the rejection or modification of the settlement, Netflix offered to alter the settlement terms, requiring customers to actively approve any continuation after the free month. The final settlement hearing took place on March 22, 2006.[121] Implementation of the settlement was delayed pending appeal in the California Appellate Courts.[122] The settlement was affirmed on April 21, 2008, with the court stating, "the trial court did not abuse its discretion in approving the amended class action settlement agreement, approving the notice given to class members, or determining the amount of fees."[123] The court approved email notice and an online claims submission process.[124] The court said:

The summary notice and long-form notice together provided all of the detail required by statute or court rule, in a highly accessible form. The fact that not all of the information was contained in a single e-mail or mailing is immaterial ... Using a summary notice that directed the class member wanting more information to a Web site containing a more detailed notice, and provided hyperlinks to that Web site, was a perfectly acceptable manner of giving notice in this case ... The class members conducted business with defendant over the Internet, and can be assumed to know how to navigate between the summary notice and the Web site. Using the capability of the Internet in that fashion was a sensible and efficient way of providing notice, especially compared to the alternative Vogel apparently preferred—mailing out a lengthy legalistic document that few class members would have been able to plow through.

The settlement was criticized because it paid out $2.5 million to attorneys for fees and costs, while offering only coupons to the class members.[125][126]

The Terms of Use have since been amended with terms that indicate such a suit would not be possible in the future:[127]

These Terms of Use shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Delaware, without regard to conflicts of laws provisions. You and Netflix agree that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and/or the California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute between you and Netflix relating in any way to the Netflix service or Web site or these Terms of Use. You and Netflix expressly and irrevocably consent to personal jurisdiction and venue in these courts. The parties agree that in any such dispute or subsequent legal action, they will only assert claims in an individual (non-class, non-representative) basis, and that they will not seek or agree to serve as a named representative in a class action or seek relief on behalf of those other than themselves.

Viewership information

Some media organizations and competitors have criticized Netflix for selectively releasing its ratings and viewer numbers of their original series and films like Bird Box. A week after its release, Netflix claimed that it had the biggest seven-day viewing record of any of its original films at over 45 million viewers, but did not provide data to validate it.[128] It also wasn't possible to accurately compare its week-long success to a major cultural event such as the Super Bowl, the Academy Awards, or a blockbuster movie run.[129] In June 2019, Netflix claimed that 30,869,863 accounts watched the Adam Sandler- and Jennifer Aniston-starring Netflix original film Murder Mystery, despite it being critically panned, making it the biggest "opening weekend" for a Netflix original film. If the film had been in theaters it would have made the equivalent of $556 million based on a $9 ticket price. Critics cast doubt that this number of people would have watched the film given that it would have made the film more popular than the finale of Game of Thrones.[130]

Miscellaneous controversies

In 2015, Netflix and Cinedigm were sued by Corinth Films over its streaming of the 1948 Italian film Bicycle Thieves; although the film itself was considered public domain in the United States, distinct subtitling or dubbing of the film can still be considered a separate and copyrightable work. Corinth alleged that the specific version of the film, registered by Richard Feiner & Co. and owned by Corinth, was being licensed by Cinedigm to Netflix without permission. The parties later settled.[131][132]

DRM criticism

Netflix use of DRM has been criticized by Defective by Design/Free Software Foundation.[133][134] The digital restrictions have impeded viewing for paying subscribers. For example, a 2019 update to Netflix dropped support for certain Samsung and Roku devices because they predate Microsoft's PlayReady DRM.[135][136]

Price increase lawsuit

In July 2016, a Netflix subscriber sued the company over the 2014 raising of its subscription fee from US$7.99 to $9.99, alleging he was told by a Netflix customer support representative in 2011 that they could pay the same price in perpetuity as long as they maintained their subscription continuously.[137]

Firing of Jonathan Friedland

In June 2018, Netflix CCO Jonathan Friedland was fired for saying the word "nigger" during a company meeting about offensive words.[138] A memo released by Reed Hastings, which stated that he should have used a euphemism, mentioned that Friedland said the word again during a follow-up meeting with human resources. Hastings described the second utterance as "confirm[ing] a deep lack of understanding".[139] Days later, an advertising campaign for Netflix launched, which emphasized its black talent.[140]

Playback speed feature

In October 2019, Netflix began to experiment with allowing users to change the speed at which content is being played, ranging from half the original speed, to up to one-and-a-half times faster the original speed. The feature was deployed to selected users of the service's Android app. The feature was criticized by various members of the film industry, who argued that it harmed the artistic integrity of their work. Netflix vice president Keela Robison stated that the feature "generated a fair amount of feedback – both for and against", and noted use cases for slowing down playback, such as helping viewers locate details in scenes, or making it easier to understand dialogue in foreign languages if they are still learning the language. Robison also noted that they had deliberately limited the rollout of the feature due to "creator concerns", and that such functions had already been available on DVD players.[141][142][143]

Partnership with Liu Cixin

Netflix's partnership with Liu Cixin, including inviting Liu to join as a consulting producer for a show based on his The Three-Body Problem, raised questions from U.S. politicians.[144] Citing an interview by The New Yorker in which Liu expressed support for Chinese government policies such as the one-child policy and the Xinjiang re-education camps, five U.S. senators wrote a letter to Netflix asking whether it was aware of Liu's remarks and demanding a justification for proceeding with the adaptation of Liu's work.[145][146] Netflix responded that Liu was not the creator of the show, and that Liu's comments "are not reflective of the views of Netflix or of the show's creators, nor are they part of the plot or themes of the show".[147] The letter points to the challenge of whether the U.S. entertainment industry can work with creators in China and tell their stories without accidentally promoting China's propaganda or becoming complicit in human rights abuses.[148]

References
  1. NATIONWIDE CLASS ACTION FILED AGAINST NETFLIX; LAWSUIT ALLEGES POPULAR MOVIE WEBSITE FAILED TO CAPTION STREAMING VIDEO LIBRARY IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, MISLED DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING CUSTOMERS Archived August 12, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. Cullen v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. CV 11-1199 (N.D. Cal.). Retrieved January 3, 2012
  2. Whitney, Lance (June 20, 2011). "Netflix sued by deaf group over lack of subtitles".
  3. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT Archived March 28, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. United States DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Case 3:11-cv-30168-MAP. Document 32. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
  4. Kerr, Dara. "Netflix and deaf-rights group settle suit over video captions". CNET. Retrieved July 8, 2019.
  5. Mullin, Joe (April 2, 2015). "9th Circuit rules Netflix isn't subject to disability law". Ars Technica. Retrieved July 8, 2019.
  6. Roettgers, Janko (July 30, 2012). "Netflix experiments with crowd-sourced captioning". GigaOM. Archived from the original on October 17, 2012. Retrieved October 19, 2012.
  7. Paletta, Anthony (October 3, 2012). "Lost in Translation, Found in Subtitles". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved October 19, 2012.
  8. Ernesto (October 19, 2012). "Netflix Caught Using "Pirated" Subtitles in Finland". TorrentFreak. Retrieved October 19, 2012.
  9. Enigmax (June 8, 2012). "Student Fined For Running Movie & TV Show Subtitle Download Site". TorrentFreak. Retrieved October 19, 2012.
  10. Cooper, Kelly-Leigh (June 29, 2018). "Queer Eye host backs Netflix subtitle change". BBC News. Retrieved July 8, 2019.
  11. "Behind the Fight to Improve Netflix's Closed Captioning". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved July 8, 2019.
  12. Will Richards (May 21, 2020). "'Back To The Future II' fans share anger as Netflix edit classic film". NME. Retrieved May 21, 2020.
  13. Cameron LeBlanc (May 27, 2020). "Great Scott! Netflix Censored 'Back to the Future II'". Fatherly. Retrieved May 28, 2020.
  14. Lang, Brent (March 4, 2019). "Netflix Responds to Steven Spielberg's Push to Bar It From Oscars". Variety. Retrieved April 3, 2019.
  15. Donnelly, Matt (April 24, 2019). "Netflix Can Chill: Academy Rules No Change in Streaming Oscar Eligibility". Variety. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  16. "'Roma' and 'The Favourite' Lead Oscar Nominations With 10 Each, writes Brooks Barnes". www.nytimes.com. January 22, 2019. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  17. Ehrlich, David (February 24, 2019). "'Roma' Wins the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film, First Mexican Film to Do So". IndieWire. Retrieved February 24, 2019.
  18. Nyren, Erin (March 2, 2019). "Spielberg to Voice Concerns Over Netflix Oscar Competition at Academy Meeting". Variety. Retrieved April 3, 2019.
  19. Thompson, Anne (March 1, 2019). "The Spielberg vs. Netflix Battle Could Mean Collateral Damage for Indies at the Oscars". IndieWire. Retrieved April 3, 2019.
  20. Statt, Nick (April 2, 2019). "Justice Department says attempts to prevent Netflix from Oscars eligibility could violate antitrust law". The Verge. Retrieved April 3, 2019.
  21. Kay, Jeremy. "Academy leaves Netflix eligibility rule intact, changes name of foreign language category". Screen. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  22. Barnes, Brooks (April 23, 2019). "Blockbuster Battle Between Steven Spielberg and Netflix Fizzles". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  23. Bradley, Laura. "Spielberg Would Like to Be Excluded from This Netflix-Hating Narrative". HWD. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  24. "EU warns of broadband strain as millions work from home". Financial Times. San Francisco. Retrieved March 20, 2020.
  25. Archer, John (March 19, 2020). "Netflix To Reduce Picture Quality During Coronavirus Pandemic". Retrieved March 20, 2020.
  26. "Global mode spat: We've got the legal paperwork". TelcoReview. Retrieved April 24, 2015.
  27. "New Zealand ISPs may be sued for letting users bypass geoblocks". The Guardian. Retrieved April 22, 2015.
  28. "Global Mode "completely legal" as CallPlus dismisses industry backlash". Computerworld NZ. Retrieved April 24, 2015.
  29. "Streaming TV rift heads to court in New Zealand". Computerworld NZ. Retrieved April 24, 2015.
  30. Hern, Alex (June 24, 2015). "Why Netflix won't block VPN users – it has too many of them, Part II". The Guardian. The Guardian. Retrieved June 24, 2015.
  31. "Sony Pictures mad at Netflix's failure to block overseas VPN users". Ars Technica. Retrieved April 22, 2015.
  32. Bolen, Michael (December 13, 2013). "Netflix Canada vs. Netflix USA: Why Do We Get The Shaft?". The Huffington Post. Retrieved August 5, 2018.
  33. "Netflix says it will do more to stop customers from bypassing country restrictions". The Verge. Retrieved January 14, 2016.
  34. "Netflix Drops Support of IPV4". reddit. Retrieved December 31, 2019.
  35. MollyKate, Cline. "Why '13 Reasons Why' Can Be Triggering for People Coping With Mental Illness". Teen Vogue. Archived from the original on April 26, 2017. Retrieved April 25, 2017.
  36. Miller, Korin (April 13, 2017). "13 Reasons Why Is Not the Force for Mental Health Awareness People Say It Is". Self. Archived from the original on April 25, 2017. Retrieved April 25, 2017.
  37. Thorbecke, Catherine (April 18, 2017). "'13 Reasons Why' faces backlash from suicide prevention advocacy group". ABC News. Archived from the original on April 24, 2017. Retrieved April 25, 2017.
  38. "17 Netflix Controversies That Almost Ended The Service". ScreenRant. March 27, 2018. Retrieved February 11, 2019.
  39. Weale, Sally (May 11, 2018). "Netflix criticised over return of suicide drama 13 Reasons Why". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved February 11, 2019.
  40. Spangler, Todd (April 30, 2018). "'13 Reasons Why' Season 2 Premiere Date, Teaser Trailer Revealed". Variety. Retrieved April 3, 2019.
  41. Libbey, Peter (March 22, 2018). "Netflix Adds a Warning Video to '13 Reasons Why'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 11, 2019.
  42. Bennett, Anita (July 16, 2019). "Netflix Edits '13 Reasons Why' Suicide Scene Following Complaints". Deadline. Retrieved August 1, 2019.
  43. "'13 Reasons Why': New Zealand Puts New Adult Rating on Netflix Suicide Drama". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved April 3, 2019.
  44. Davies, Hannah; Walker, Shaun (November 15, 2019). "Netflix to amend Holocaust documentary after complaints from Polish government". The Guardian. Retrieved November 16, 2019.
  45. Reuters (December 17, 2019). "Netflix show portraying Jesus as gay sparks anger in Brazil". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved December 19, 2019.
  46. Nedelman, Michael (July 5, 2019). "Netflix to cut back on smoking after 'Stranger Things' criticism". CNN. Retrieved July 6, 2019.
  47. "Netflix to remove real-life disaster clip". BBC News. March 14, 2019. Retrieved April 3, 2019.
  48. Mole, Beth (February 5, 2019). "Netflix buys into Goop hooey with deal to make a wellness docuseries". Ars Technica. Retrieved April 3, 2019.
  49. Basu, Tanya (February 5, 2019). "Docs Are Pissed Netflix Is Giving Gwyneth's Goop a Megaphone". Retrieved April 3, 2019.
  50. Mahdawi, Arwa (February 8, 2019). "Goop has a Netflix deal – this is a dangerous win for pseudoscience". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved April 3, 2019.
  51. Bundel, Ani (February 10, 2019). "Netflix's new partnership with Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop brand is a win for pseudoscience". NBC News. Archived from the original on February 20, 2019. Retrieved February 20, 2019.
  52. Brian, Greg (January 14, 2020). "'The Goop Lab' Isn't The First Time Netflix Has Forced You to Pay for Dangerous Opinions". Cheatsheet.com. Cheatsheet. Archived from the original on January 17, 2020. Retrieved January 17, 2020.
  53. WILDE, VAL (January 20, 2020). "Gwyneth Paltrow's "The Goop Lab" Is Unscientific Garbage. Then It Gets Worse". Patheos.com. Patheos. Archived from the original on January 20, 2020. Retrieved January 20, 2020. Netflix and Gwyneth Paltrow have entered into an unholy alliance and spawned The Goop Lab, a (purported) health and wellness docu-series set for release on January 24.
  54. Turk, Victoria (January 28, 2020). "Goop on psychedelics isn't bad, it's just boring". Wired.co.uk. Wired (UK). Archived from the original on January 28, 2020. Retrieved January 28, 2020. Between the different interviews about different studies involving different drugs and different disorders, everything gets rather muddled up, and the only real takeaway is that there is some evidence psychedelics may have therapeutic benefits to some people in some situations.
  55. Charara, Sophie (January 25, 2020). "What The Goop Lab gets right (and wrong) about sex". Wired.co.uk. Wired (UK). Archived from the original on January 28, 2020. Retrieved January 28, 2020. "I think the claims made by Gwyneth Paltrow and Goop are not evidence-based and potentially damaging to women,” says Cynthia Graham, professor of sexual and reproductive health at the University of Southampton.
  56. Reynolds, Matt (January 24, 2020). "Think Goop is bad? It's only the tip of Netflix's pseudoscience iceberg". Wired.co.uk. Wired UK. Archived from the original on January 28, 2020. Retrieved January 28, 2020. In The Goop Lab, Gwyneth Paltrow and her colleagues try out energy healing, psychedelics and cold therapy. But plenty of Netflix's documentaries take an equally dubious approach to science.
  57. Lange, Maggie (July 30, 2020). "Netflix's Wellness Programming Is Irresponsible and Misleading". Vice. Archived from the original on July 30, 2020. Retrieved July 30, 2020.
  58. Jarry, Jonathan (July 16, 2020). "Beware the Insidious Nonsense of Netflix's Zac Efron Travelogue Show". McGill Office for Science and Society. Retrieved July 17, 2020.
  59. Sifferlin, Alexandra (August 15, 2017). "What You Should Know About the Pro-Vegan Netflix Film 'What the Health'". Time. Archived from the original on May 28, 2019. Retrieved August 3, 2020.
  60. Zhou, Naaman (June 3, 2018). "Pete Evans' documentary should be cut from Netflix, doctors group says". The Guardian. Archived from the original on July 7, 2020. Retrieved August 3, 2020.
  61. Bahr, Lindsey (September 15, 2020). "Netflix film Cuties becomes target of politicized backlash". CBC News. Archived from the original on September 16, 2020.
  62. "Cuties controversy sparks #CancelNetflix campaign". The Guardian. September 11, 2020. Archived from the original on September 11, 2020. Retrieved September 11, 2020.
  63. Roos, Meghan (September 11, 2020). "Missouri senator asks Netflix to answer questions about its controversial "Cuties" film and marketing campaign". Newsweek. Archived from the original on September 12, 2020. Retrieved September 12, 2020.
  64. Curtis, Larry D. (September 11, 2020). "Sen. Lee calls on Netflix CEO to remove film 'Cuties' from its service". KUTV. Archived from the original on September 12, 2020. Retrieved September 12, 2020.
  65. Cole, Brendan (September 12, 2020). "Democrat Tulsi Gabbard says Netflix is complicit in child sex trafficking for "child porn" film "Cuties"". Newsweek. Archived from the original on September 13, 2020. Retrieved September 13, 2020.
  66. Murdock, Jason (September 12, 2020). "Ted Cruz Calls for Justice Department to Investigate Netflix Over 'Cuties' Child Porn Claims". Newsweek. Archived from the original on September 13, 2020. Retrieved September 12, 2020.
  67. "Facing backlash, Netflix defends 'Cuties' as 'social commentary' against sexualizing young girls". The Washington Post. September 11, 2020. Archived from the original on September 12, 2020. Retrieved September 14, 2020.
  68. "Nancy Pelosi's daughter Christine says Netflix should 'cancel' 'Cuties': 'Apologize, work with experts to heal your harm'". Yahoo!. Canada. Archived from the original on September 16, 2020. Retrieved September 15, 2020.
  69. "Lawmakers demand Netflix probe over controversial film "Cuties"". The Independent. September 12, 2020. Archived from the original on September 15, 2020. Retrieved September 14, 2020.
  70. Bahr, Lindsey (September 14, 2020). "Netflix's 'Cuties' becomes target of politicized backlash". AP News. Archived from the original on September 15, 2020. Retrieved September 14, 2020.
  71. Moniuszko, Sara M. "State attorneys general ask Netflix to pull controversial 'Cuties' as director defends 'feminist' film". USA Today. Archived from the original on September 15, 2020. Retrieved September 15, 2020.
  72. Moniuszko, Sara M. (September 14, 2020). "State attorneys general ask Netflix to pull controversial 'Cuties' as director defends 'feminist' film". USA Today. Archived from the original on September 15, 2020. Retrieved September 15, 2020.
  73. "Netflix'de tepki çeken Cuties filmi için RTÜK'teki rapor tamamladı; yaptırım uygulanması gündemde" [RTÜK completed the report for the Cuties movie, which got a reaction on Netflix; implementation of sanctions is on the agenda]. T24 (in Turkish). September 1, 2020. Archived from the original on September 12, 2020. Retrieved September 3, 2020.
  74. Doucouré, Maïmouna (September 15, 2020). "I directed 'Cuties.' This is what you need to know about modern girlhood". USA Today. Retrieved September 15, 2020.
  75. "Netflix indicted in Texas over 'lewd' depiction of children in 'Cuties'". NBC News. Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  76. US patent 7024381, Hastings; W. Reed (Santa Cruz, CA), Randolph; Marc B. (Santa Cruz, CA), Hunt; Neil Duncan, "Approach for renting items to customers", issued 2006-04-04
  77. US patent 6584450, Hastings; W. Reed (Santa Cruz, CA), Randolph; Marc B. (Santa Cruz, CA), Hunt; Neil Duncan (Mountain View, CA), "Method and apparatus for renting items", issued 2003-06-24
  78. "Form 8-K for BLOCKBUSTER INC". Yahoo! Finance. Archived from the original on July 1, 2007.
  79. Bond, Paul (June 29, 2007). "Blockbuster to shutter 282 stores this year". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on February 21, 2010. Retrieved July 19, 2010.
  80. Blockbuster to close 282 stores this year – San Francisco Business Times. Bizjournals.com (June 29, 2007). Retrieved on December 9, 2013.
  81. "Blockbuster, Weinsteins sign exclusive deal". Video Business. Reed Business Information. Archived from the original on January 3, 2007.
  82. Sciretta, Peter (November 16, 2006). "How The Weinstein Company ruined Home Entertainment". Archived from the original on January 9, 2010. Retrieved July 19, 2010.
  83. "Annual Report" (Press release). Netflix. Archived from the original on September 8, 2010. Retrieved July 19, 2010.
  84. Pattern, Dominic (September 16, 2016). "Netflix hit by Fox with lawsuit over poaching executives". Deadline. Retrieved August 5, 2018.
  85. Patten, Dominic (July 24, 2018). "Fox Battle With Netflix Over Executive Poaching Gets Summer 2019 Trial Date". Deadline. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
  86. "Netflix Gets Greenlight from Appeals Court to Challenge Fox's Employment Contracts". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
  87. "Netflix Countersues Fox, Claims Employee Deals Unenforceable". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
  88. "Viacom Sues Netflix for Employee Poaching". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
  89. Maddaus, Gene (June 5, 2019). "Fox Scores Big Win in Netflix Poaching Suit". Variety. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
  90. Patten, Dominic (June 5, 2019). "Netflix Takes Near TKO In Exec Poaching Suit With Fox & Disney; Could Signal Beginning Of The End Of Legal War". Deadline. Retrieved August 20, 2019.
  91. Patten, Dominic (December 10, 2019). "Netflix Loses Exec Poaching Battle With Fox; Appeal Almost Certain – Update". Deadline. Retrieved December 15, 2019.
  92. Wallen, Jack (August 14, 2010). "The Netflix Linux Conjecture: How Netflix snubs the Linux community".
  93. "Netflix – Chrome Web Store". Archived from the original on June 15, 2012. Retrieved April 22, 2016.
  94. "The Netflix Tech Blog: HTML5 Video in IE 11 on Windows 8.1". netflix.com. Retrieved October 25, 2014.
  95. "Watch Netflix in Ubuntu today". Ubuntu. Retrieved April 11, 2015.
  96. "Netflix streaming comes to PCLinuxOS » PCLinuxOS".
  97. Jared Newman (October 10, 2014). "Netflix comes to Linux via Ubuntu and Chrome". PCWorld.
  98. West, Jullian (May 9, 2011). "Netflix Plug-in for Chrome and Chrome OS is on the way". Archived from the original on May 11, 2011. Retrieved April 22, 2016.
  99. iheartubuntu (November 15, 2012). "Netflix on Ubuntu Is Here". iheartubuntu.com. Archived from the original on March 8, 2014. Retrieved March 8, 2014.
  100. iheartubuntu (November 18, 2012). "PPA for Netflix Desktop App". iheartubuntu.com. Archived from the original on March 8, 2014. Retrieved March 8, 2014.
  101. "Pipelight – Using Silverlight in Linux browsers". ubuntugeek.com. August 26, 2013. Archived from the original on March 8, 2014. Retrieved March 8, 2014.
  102. Fds-Team (October 15, 2013). "Pipelight – Installation". fds-team.de. Archived from the original on March 8, 2014. Retrieved March 8, 2014.
  103. "You Want Innovation? Offer a Prize". The New York Times. January 31, 2007.
  104. "Netflix Prize Still Awaits a Movie Seer". The New York Times. June 4, 2007.
  105. "BelKor Home Page". AT&T Labs, Inc. – Research. Archived from the original on November 10, 2015. Retrieved November 9, 2010.
  106. "Doe v Netflix" (PDF). Wired. Retrieved January 4, 2019.
  107. Lohr, Steve (March 12, 2010). "Netflix Cancels Contest After Concerns Are Raised About Privacy". The New York Times.
  108. "All DVDs Releasing This Week". Netflix. Retrieved October 3, 2009.
  109. "Netflix Removes New Releases Page – Customers Complain". Hacking Netflix. Retrieved March 25, 2008.
  110. "Happy New Year". Netflix Community Blog. Retrieved March 25, 2008.
  111. Kuang, Cliff (March 16, 2010). "5 Ways Netflix Could Have Avoided an Ugly User Backlash". Fast Company.
  112. Conneally, Tim (March 18, 2010). "Netflix axes 'friends' feature due to unpopularity". Betanews.
  113. "New Movie Details Page Rolled Out". Netflix. March 4, 2010.
  114. "Friends Update". Netflix. March 17, 2010.
  115. "Unhappy Netflix Customers using Netflix Movie Reviews to Protest Friends Feature Removal". Hacking Netflix. March 14, 2010.
  116. Liedtke, Michael (February 10, 2005). "'Throttling' angers Netflix heavy renters". Associated Press (Internet Archive). Archived from the original on February 15, 2006. Retrieved February 11, 2005.
  117. "Terms of Use". Netflix. Retrieved January 30, 2006.
  118. Class action suit Archived September 29, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  119. "Blockbuster Throttling". Hacking Netflix. Retrieved December 17, 2006.
  120. "Court Urged To Strike Down Proposed Netflix Class Action Settlement in Deceptive Advertising Case" (Press release). Trial Lawyers for Public Justice. Archived from the original on January 11, 2006. Retrieved April 22, 2016.
  121. "Netflix Claim Form Process" (Press release). Netflix.
  122. California Appellate Courts Archived October 17, 2015, at the Wayback Machine Chavez v. Netflix Inc. Appeal Status
  123. Chavez v. Netflix Inc. (Court of California 1st Appellate District April 21, 2008).Text
  124. Kralowec, Kimberly A. (April 28, 2008). "New class action objector opinion: Chavez v. Netflix, Inc". The UCL Practitioner. Retrieved August 21, 2008.
  125. Slater, Dan (April 23, 2008). "Court Orders Netflix to Deliver $2 million in Attorneys Fees". The Wall Street Journal Law Blog. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Retrieved August 21, 2008.
  126. Spring, Tom (March 27, 2007). "Solutions for Digital Annoyance". PC World. Retrieved August 21, 2008.
  127. "Netflix Terms of Use: Disputes; Governing Law". Retrieved July 31, 2009.
  128. "Netflix execs say they'll finally start releasing viewership data soon". The Verge. April 17, 2019. Retrieved June 2, 2019.
  129. "Netflix's 'Bird Box' success gets Hollywood clucking". Seattle Times. January 2, 2019. Retrieved June 2, 2019.
  130. "A Mystery Indeed Netflix Claims New Adam Sandler, Jennifer Aniston Movie Drew Record Views". Vanity Fair. June 19, 2019.
  131. Gardner, Eriq (October 22, 2015). "Netflix Hit With Copyright Lawsuit Over Classic Italian Film 'Bicycle Thief'". Archived from the original on May 20, 2017.
  132. Child, Ben (October 23, 2015). "Netflix sued for streaming Bicycle Thieves 'without copyright'". The Guardian. Archived from the original on October 25, 2017.
  133. "Cancel Netflix if you value freedom — Free Software Foundation — working together for free software". www.fsf.org. Retrieved April 29, 2019.
  134. hawk, Thomas (January 4, 2008). "Netflix, Hollywood Drive Customers Away with Restrictive DRM". Seeking Alpha. Retrieved November 17, 2019.
  135. Whitwam, Ryan (November 12, 2019). "Netflix is killing support for some TVs and Roku boxes because of DRM". Extreme Tech. Retrieved November 17, 2019.
  136. Torbet, Georgina. "Netflix explains why its apps won't work on older TVs and set-top boxes". 2019-11-12. Retrieved November 17, 2019.
  137. Spangler, Todd (July 1, 2016). "Netflix User Sues Over Rate Hike, Claiming Breach of Contract". Variety. Retrieved June 4, 2017.
  138. Statt, Nick (June 22, 2018). "Netflix PR chief fired for repeatedly using the n-word". The Verge. Retrieved August 5, 2018.
  139. Sandberg, Bryn Elise; Goldberg, Lesley (June 22, 2018). "Netflix fires PR chief over use of N-word in meeting". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved August 5, 2018.
  140. Espinoza, Russ (June 25, 2018). "Netflix runs 'Strong Black Lead' spot days after N-word crisis". Forbes. Retrieved August 5, 2018.
  141. Alexander, Julia (October 29, 2019). "Netflix wants to let people watch things at twice the speed, but Hollywood is pushing back". The Verge. Retrieved November 10, 2019.
  142. Roettgers, Janko (October 29, 2019). "Netflix Responds to Backlash Over Variable Playback Speed Test". Variety. Retrieved November 10, 2019.
  143. Bromwich, Jonah Engel (October 29, 2019). "What If Netflix, but Twice as Fast?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved November 10, 2019.
  144. Brzeski, Patrick (September 24, 2020). "GOP Senators Send Letter to Netflix Challenging Plans to Adapt Chinese Sci-Fi Novel 'The Three Body Problem'". hollywoodreporter.com. Retrieved January 5, 2021.
  145. "Blackburn, Colleagues Raise Concerns About Netflix's Choice to Adapt and Promote Film by Proponent of Uyghur Internment". U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. September 24, 2020. Retrieved January 5, 2021.
  146. Flood, Alison (September 25, 2020). "Netflix faces call to rethink Liu Cixin adaptation after his Uighur comments". The Guardian. Retrieved January 5, 2021.
  147. Thorne, Will (September 25, 2020). "Netflix Sends Firm Response to GOP Senators Over Chinese Sci-Fi Adaptation Controversy". Variety. Retrieved January 5, 2021.
  148. Li, Jane (September 25, 2020). "Netflix's 'Three-Body Problem' has to figure out how to not be the next 'Mulan'". Quartz. Retrieved January 5, 2021.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.