Amazon Prime Video ad insertion and ACCC lawsuit: Difference between revisions
expand the us ruling detail, add the german court ruling and the us case number, note the later pro rata refund change and the netflix comparison |
add images of the munich court press release and the us complaint |
||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
== Change-in-benefits defense and US precedent == | == Change-in-benefits defense and US precedent == | ||
The United States had already seen a comparable class action over the 2024 Prime Video ads. Wilbert Napoleon sued Amazon.com, Inc. on February 9, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (''Napoleon v. Amazon.com, Inc.'', Case 2:24-cv-00186), pleading seven counts, including breach of contract and state consumer-protection claims, over the ads and the US$2.99 charge to remove them.<ref name="napoleon" /> In July 2025, U.S. District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein dismissed the suit, rejecting the argument that adding ads amounted to a price increase.<ref name="deadline" /> Rothstein wrote that the addition of ads ''"constituted a change in subscription benefits as opposed to a price increase,"'' and that all subscribers agree to a contract when they join Prime, giving Amazon the ability to alter the nature of the services provided.<ref name="deadline" /> She acknowledged that for members who paid to keep their streaming ad-free, the change had an effect on their wallets she called ''"tantamount"'' to a price increase, then explained why she still treated it as a benefit change: | The United States had already seen a comparable class action over the 2024 Prime Video ads. Wilbert Napoleon sued Amazon.com, Inc. on February 9, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (''Napoleon v. Amazon.com, Inc.'', Case 2:24-cv-00186), pleading seven counts, including breach of contract and state consumer-protection claims, over the ads and the US$2.99 charge to remove them.<ref name="napoleon" /> | ||
[[File:Amazon-prime-video-ads-accc-napoleon-complaint-p1.png|thumb|center|upright=1.7|Page one of the class action complaint in ''Napoleon v. Amazon.com, Inc.'' (Case 2:24-cv-00186), filed February 9, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington over the Prime Video ads.<ref name="napoleon" />]] In July 2025, U.S. District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein dismissed the suit, rejecting the argument that adding ads amounted to a price increase.<ref name="deadline" /> Rothstein wrote that the addition of ads ''"constituted a change in subscription benefits as opposed to a price increase,"'' and that all subscribers agree to a contract when they join Prime, giving Amazon the ability to alter the nature of the services provided.<ref name="deadline" /> She acknowledged that for members who paid to keep their streaming ad-free, the change had an effect on their wallets she called ''"tantamount"'' to a price increase, then explained why she still treated it as a benefit change: | |||
<blockquote>''The Court, however, is compelled to maintain the distinction between a benefit removal and a price increase for several reasons. First, this distinction is repeatedly reinforced in the contracts themselves. Benefit modifications and removals are expressly authorized throughout both contracts; price increases are circumscribed and allowed only according to certain conditions.''</blockquote><ref name="deadline" /> | <blockquote>''The Court, however, is compelled to maintain the distinction between a benefit removal and a price increase for several reasons. First, this distinction is repeatedly reinforced in the contracts themselves. Benefit modifications and removals are expressly authorized throughout both contracts; price increases are circumscribed and allowed only according to certain conditions.''</blockquote><ref name="deadline" /> | ||
| Line 65: | Line 67: | ||
== German court ruling == | == German court ruling == | ||
A court in another jurisdiction reached the opposite result on the same practice. In December 2025, the Regional Court of Munich I (Landgericht München I) granted a claim brought against Amazon Digital Germany GmbH by the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (vzbv), Case 33 O 3266/24.<ref name="lgmunich" /><ref name="vzbv" /> The consumer association had challenged Amazon's move to add advertising to Prime Video, announced in a January 3, 2024 email telling customers that from February 5, 2024 titles could carry limited advertising, as an impermissible unilateral change to the contract, and had argued the email was misleading under Section 5 of Germany's Unfair Competition Act because it suggested customers would from then on receive only an ad-supported service.<ref name="lgmunich" /> The judgment is not yet final.<ref name="vzbv" /> | A court in another jurisdiction reached the opposite result on the same practice. In December 2025, the Regional Court of Munich I (Landgericht München I) granted a claim brought against Amazon Digital Germany GmbH by the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (vzbv), Case 33 O 3266/24.<ref name="lgmunich" /><ref name="vzbv" /> | ||
[[File:Amazon-prime-video-ads-accc-lg-munich-press-release.png|thumb|center|upright=2.6|The Regional Court of Munich I's press release on its December 2025 ruling for a consumer-association claim that Amazon's unilateral addition of ads to Prime Video was impermissible, Case 33 O 3266/24.<ref name="lgmunich" />]] The consumer association had challenged Amazon's move to add advertising to Prime Video, announced in a January 3, 2024 email telling customers that from February 5, 2024 titles could carry limited advertising, as an impermissible unilateral change to the contract, and had argued the email was misleading under Section 5 of Germany's Unfair Competition Act because it suggested customers would from then on receive only an ad-supported service.<ref name="lgmunich" /> The judgment is not yet final.<ref name="vzbv" /> | |||
== Prime Video Ultra == | == Prime Video Ultra == | ||