The consumer did not actually agree to the terms of: "I, the consumer, will pay you $XX to download the film to my device, but you can delete it from my device at any time in the future without giving me a refund".
It may be written in the fine print, but it's not something that most rational consumers willingly agree to.
Exactly: take it to its logical conclusion. What if Amazon did this 5 minutes after they took your money for it, so you never got to watch it at all? Obviously that's not what anyone's agreeing to.
The flipside of it is that surely Amazon did not agree to continue serving the film from now and the heat death of the universe.
Regulation of these shrink-wrap agreements is the only non-insane solution to this problem. Lawsuits are too slow and too expensive, and by the time you get enough people behind one, may be an exercise in squeezing blood out of a rock.
It certainly is up to them. They negotiated a contract with the content producers that did not allow for that, and could have negotiated a different contract that did by offering more.
If they didn't want to continue serving the film until the heat death of the universe, then that's what they should have done differently, rather than just unilaterally screwing over all the buyers.
I mean, they all click agree, because they DGAF about the terms, they just want to use the service. Consumers can absolutely refuse to accept these terms (and some do, like me), they just choose not to.
Generally, the people who are well aware of this situation are techies who have seen coverage of the issue in specialist media or who have been burnt by it personally.
Agreeing to terms without informed consent is not consent. A lay person can't honestly be expected to fully understand a novel's worth of legalese. From a moral standpoint, fuck the megacorps with a team of lawyers foisting such bullshit on people.
That's not true under piracy.