I don't think any average consumer, when they click a "Buy" button next to the movie they want to watch, understands that they are only buying a license to watch the movie. Most believe it's just like buying a Bluray disc, but "on the computer".

And yes, I know people are restricted in what they can do with Bluray discs, but as long as you have a functioning player, you can watch the disc. I think that's all anyone has ever expected out of physical media. DRM'd digital media comes with much more uncertainty, and that should be reflected in the terminology used to "buy a license" for it.

I would guess you're right, and that one could take Google to court over not being able to exercise said right instead of trying to reword buttons. Breach of contract on Google's side. Except the contract probably has small print saying that they're not responsible for software bugs, have no obligation to support your particular device and that any past performance does not bestow entitlement yada yada yada. Sounds like fun and just in time for christmas (referring to OP's story).

Or we agree that such a set of conditions constitutes renting rather than 'owning' as one typically does after 'buying'.

Genuinely not sure which option has more downsides.

Those aren't exclusive -- isn't renting an example of "buying a license"?

But I would be okay if they had to change the misleading "Buy Movie" to a phrase like "Buy a Limited License to Watch Movie". Or "Buy Limited Access to Movie".

You’re buying a license that can be revoked at the seller’s discretion without refund though. Imagine buying a blu-ray and suddenly you can’t play it anymore because your Google account got banned for whatever reason. I started reading Kafka and it sound like one of his stories.