The Contract's Strict "Fine Print" Terms May Have Allowed It, But The Claim Is That It Was A "Deceptive" Trade Practice -- A "Bait And Switch"... I'm Not So Sure.

Let this serve as my mid-February item on Amazon. As Mr. Bezos upped his one week's total cash out figure to over $4 billion(!), the company he founded was hit with a federal suit in LA, seeking class action status. The suit claims it is a deceptive trade practice to now charge Prime members for movies the company advertised for years -- would be "free".

The reason I am just a lil' skeptical of this. . . is prime-arily (see what I did there?) due to the fact that the company gave almost a year's prior notice that this change was coming.

Sure, I think it is lousy customer relations, but I am unconvinced that it was unlawful. And true, it advertised the service as "free" -- and ad free -- movies to build millions of ordinary customers into Prime regulars, for a monthly added fee. But it has given ample advance notice of the change -- and users may either opt out, or vote with their feet -- en todo. In any event, here's the story, from the venerable old Hollywood Reporter:

. . .[W]hen Amazon altered its terms, users who had signed up for annual subscriptions were also impacted. They allege the change is deceptive.

“Subscribers must now pay extra to get something they already paid for,” the complaint states.

In addition to being “unfair,” the suit alleges that Amazon illegally benefited by advertising Prime Video as “commercial-free” for years prior to launching its ad-supported tier, which “harms both consumers and honest competition,” according to the complaint.

The proposed class action seeks at least $5 million and a court order barring Amazon from engaging in further deceptive conduct on behalf of users who subscribed to Prime prior to Dec. 28, 2023. It brings claims for breach of contract, false advertising and unfair competition, among other alleged violations of consumer protection laws in California and Washington.

Last year, the Federal Trade Commission sued the tech giant for allegedly duping consumers into signing up for its Prime service and then impeding them from canceling their subscriptions. The suit argued Amazon employs a “manipulative” and “coercive” interface to trick users into enrolling in automatically renewing subscriptions. It also alleged that many subscribers intended to sign up solely for Prime Video, which is a lower-cost option.

Prime is considered a vital part of Amazon’s retail dominance because it keeps users locked into the company’s marketplace by offering them perks, including access to Prime Video, according to the FTC. . . .

I would also note that Amazon avoided a class action suit a few years ago, when it cut off access to some movies that users had purchased -- citing at the time that the studios themselves were changing licensing terms to the wholesalers -- here, Amazon. But we will keep an eye on this, just the same.

It does (Bezos' ~$4 billion in cash outs -- while mistreating his customers) put me in mind of the old Voltaire quote: "Verily -- the sharp employ the sharp. A man may be by his lawyer, known. . . ." Be excellent to one another, today -- and always!

नमस्ते