As a long-time gamer and Amazon Prime subscriber, I find myself constantly juggling between the thrill of new releases and the financial realities of subscription services. The latest news about Amazon’s stance on the lawsuit accusing it of misleading Prime subscribers over ad-free streaming has left me somewhat divided.
Amazon is countering a lawsuit claiming they deceived Prime members by secretly billing extra for ad-free movie and TV show streaming.
To challenge the pending class action lawsuit, the company contends that they had earlier made clear that the collection of Prime advantages could be modified. They claim they “never promised that any specific” benefit within the bundle “would continue to be offered perpetually.
The statement from the recent filing clarifies that Amazon has not guaranteed, for either Prime members or non-members, that Prime Video will be completely devoid of advertisements all the time.
According to the Federal Trade Commission, Prime plays a key role in Amazon’s retail supremacy by keeping users tied to their marketplace through rewards like access to Prime Video. It doesn’t necessarily have to generate significant revenue on its own; instead, it contributes to a thriving network of profitable services that Amazon offers.
In the past year, Amazon transformed its ad tier into the standard option for more than 100 million of its subscribers. This swift change catapulted the service into a dominant force in streaming advertisements and made it the biggest ad-supported subscription streamer available. Those who prefer an ad-free experience are required to pay an extra $2.99 each month.
The move sparked a lawsuit from users who had signed up for annual subscriptions. They claimed breach of contract and violations of state consumer protection laws over the alleged “bait and switch.”
Amazon asserts that it can unilaterally modify or eliminate Prime membership perks according to its own judgment, referring to a provision in its terms of service. It refers to a previous ruling by a federal judge who dismissed a similar lawsuit against the company last July. The suit accused Amazon of deceiving consumers about the benefits of Prime, specifically by charging an undisclosed $9.95 delivery fee for certain Whole Foods purchases marketed as “free” and “fast” delivery. Those subscribers argued that they had been misled based on advertisements promoting these benefits.
The company emphasizes that while they currently offer an ad-free Prime Video experience, they reserve the right to modify or discontinue this feature at their own discretion. Failing to acknowledge this could potentially limit Amazon’s ability to make changes in accordance with their agreement.
The lawsuit further highlighted a clause in Amazon Prime Video’s terms stating that any price hikes would not take effect until a subscription renewal. However, the company clarifies that this rule pertains only to those who subscribe solely to Prime Video, distinct from the broader Prime membership.
The class action lawsuit we’re discussing aims for at least $5 million and a court injunction preventing the proprietor of Amazon MGM Studios from continuing deceptive practices. This is for users who subscribed to Prime before Dec 28, 2023. It contains accusations such as breach of contract, misleading advertising, and unjust competition, along with other alleged infringements on consumer protection laws in California and Washington.
Criticism has been aimed at Amazon Prime by government officials. Previously, the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against the tech company, claiming they deceived consumers into subscribing to their Prime service and made it difficult for them to cancel these subscriptions afterward. The FTC’s suit asserted that Amazon uses a “manipulative” and “coercive” user interface to trick users into enrolling in automatically renewing subscriptions. Additionally, the suit alleged that numerous customers intended to sign up only for Prime Video, which is a cheaper alternative, but were still subjected to the full Prime service.
In 2020, Amazon faced a lawsuit alleging unfair competition and misleading advertising over their policy regarding terminating consumer access to content bought through Prime Video. The federal judge ruled in Amazon’s favor in 2022, stating that the company had clearly communicated in its terms of service that purchased movies or TV shows might become unavailable due to licensing restrictions from providers.
Read More
Sorry. No data so far.
2024-10-07 23:54