Amazon Now Charges Extra to Turn on Ad-Free Streaming, Alleges Fraud Class Action
Amazon last month “changed the deal” on its Prime Video offering, charging consumers an additional $2.99 a month for ad-free streaming, alleged plaintiff Wilbert Napoleon's fraud class action Friday (docket 2:24-cv-00186) in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The extra $2.99 charge applies even to people who purchased the yearly, ad-free subscription and are now midway through their subscriptions, said the complaint. “This is not fair,” because these subscribers "already paid for the ad-free version,” and shouldn’t have to pay extra “for something that they already paid for,” it said. The complaint alleges violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and California’s False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law.
Based on Amazon’s advertisements, reasonable consumers who subscribed to Prime Video before the change “reasonably expected” that their subscriptions would include ad-free streaming of movies and TV shows for the duration of the subscription, said the complaint. Amazon’s actions are unfair, deceptive and unlawful, it said. Amazon’s actions offer “no countervailing benefits,” it said: “Misrepresenting its service harms both consumers and honest competition.”
Napoleon renewed his annual Prime Video subscription in June, and “a contract was formed,” with ad-free streaming “a specific and material term” of that contract, said the complaint. “It was also an affirmation of fact about the services, and a promise relating to the service,” it said. The Eastvale, California, resident “performed his obligations under the contract by paying for the annual subscription,” it said. But Amazon breached its contract by failing to provide Napoleon access to ad-free streaming for the duration of the subscription, it said. It also “breached warranties for the same reasons,” it said.
Napoleon seeks damages and, in the alternative, restitution, said the complaint. He also seeks an injunction, it said. He’s “permitted to seek equitable remedies in the alternative because he has no adequate remedy at law,” it said.
Legal remedies here aren’t “adequate,” because they wouldn’t stop Amazon from continuing to engage in its “deceptive practices,” said the complaint. A legal remedy also isn’t adequate if it’s not “as certain as an equitable remedy,” it said. The elements of Napoleon’s equitable claims are different and don’t “require the same showings” as his legal claims.
Napoleon’s remedies at law also aren’t “equally prompt or efficient as their equitable ones,” said the complaint. The need to schedule a jury trial “may result in delay,” and a jury trial will take longer, and be more expensive, than a bench trial, it said.