Plaintiffs 'Don't Want to Watch Commercials on Amazon,' Says Their Class Action
Ten Amazon Prime members filed a breach of contract class action (docket 2:24-cv-00364) against Amazon Tuesday in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle over the $2.99 Prime Video add-on fee it implemented in January.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Amazon has offered Prime Video with commercial-free viewing as a benefit of its Prime membership service since 2011, said the complaint. It began showing ads on Prime Video in January and in connection with that change, required subscribers who wanted to avoid commercials to pay a $2.99 fee, it said.
For the plaintiffs, the imposition of a $2.99 monthly fee “to enjoy a commercial-free viewing experience -- a benefit that they had already paid for in their annual subscriptions -- not only constitutes a breach of contract by Amazon, but also a violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act,” said the complaint. It also violates the unfair and deceptive acts and practices statutes “of virtually every other state in the country,” it said.
The Prime contracts entered into by the plaintiffs with Amazon were annual 12-month subscriptions, the complaint said. Fees are paid upfront, with no change possible until the end of the term. During the term, Amazon is “obligated to provide” commercial-free video streaming service, it said. The company has never increased subscription fees during the term of an annual subscription membership, it noted.
The plaintiffs are Timothy Peterson, Timnath, Colorado; Ashley Scarborough, Honolulu; Daleene Fox, Lewiston, Idaho; Porsche Holmes, Champaign, Illinois; Laura Smith, Basehor, Kansas; Sharon Crosswhite, Moberly, Missouri; Sarah Frazee, New Jersey; Kelly Slovenkay, Mentor, Ohio; Oliver Tsuya, Park City, Utah; and Katrina Erickson, Naselle, Washington. All maintained an Amazon Prime membership through the relevant period and paid Amazon's annual fee for commercial-free movie and TV streaming, the complaint said.
Like the plaintiffs, many Prime customers regularly chose to subscribe to or keep their annual Prime membership in part because of commercial-free viewing, said the complaint. The plaintiffs don’t want to watch commercials on Amazon, it said. They paid for commercial-free streaming for an uninterrupted one-year term, which Amazon “has now robbed them of,” it said.
Prime Video derives its revenue primarily from its subscription base, which as of 2022 numbered over 200 million users, said the complaint. Many of Amazon Prime’s streaming competitors have introduced commercials into their services, giving Amazon’s commercial-free subscription “a competitive advantage,” it said.
The plaintiffs claim breach of contract and the duty of good faith and fair dealing and violations of consumer protection laws in Washington, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio and Utah. They seek for themselves and the class actual, consequential, punitive, statutory and treble damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; injunctive relief; disgorgement and restitution of all monies received from plaintiffs and the class; and attorneys’ fees and costs. Amazon doesn't comment on pending litigation, a spokesperson emailed Wednesday.