I love IA, but everything I’ve read about this case makes it sound like they are in the wrong here. The law is pretty clear on how pending boos is supposed to work, they were fully aware of that because they used to follow the law, and then at some point they randomly decided to ignore the law.

I really hope they aren’t choosing this hill to die on. It would be a huge loss for humanity if they collapsed.

Can you eli10 why their method violates the law? Seeing a one sided view from their pov does not reveal this.

I’m mostly just parroting what others have said, I’m not a lawyer. But my understanding is that online book lending is supposed to be limited to a discrete number of lendees at a time, just like the books at a physical library. IA knew this and yet decided to remove restrictions so that more people could borrow books than they were allowed to lend out at once.

In the article it said they were lending to one user at a time though which seems reasonable. You are saying they didn’t actually do this and that is the reason they are in hot water? So they are basically just denying that they did this?

I’d like to see evidence of what the original poster on this thread says before trusting what they are saying. I haven’t seen this be the case at all.