Amazon Prime customers are left threatening to cancel their subscriptions once again, with the streaming giant coming under fire for new changes and a hefty price hike.
In the great streaming wars, the likes of Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Disney+ duke it out for first place. While Netflix has retained its place at the top of the pile, it's not come without its controversy.
Notably, the introduction of different tiers and lower-priced ad packages have helped bolster profits. Alongside price hikes, Netflix has come under fire for its use of generative AI adverts. Now, Amazon is taking heat for taking a leaf out of its rival's book in terms of pricing.
For over a year, customers have been arguing that the introduction of ads to the streaming service was accompanied by an 'illegal' stealth price increase.
Advert
In early 2024, Amazon defaulted customers to an ad-supported tier and added a $3 surplus to those who wanted to avoid the commercials. There was obvious backlash from disgruntled consumers, with numerous complaints that Amazon was locking a bonus of their original offering behind a $36-a-year paywall.
The company's terms say it can't raise prices mid-subscription, leading to further uproar.
This has been dismissed by U.S. District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein, who ruled that there's an important legal distinction between raising the price of something and making the original product worse while customers pay you more for the nicer thing they were previously getting.
Advert
Rothstein had previously argued this would be the case, and in her pretty direct ruling, reiterates that she had previously dismissed two filings that were similar in their arguments.
In her legal opinion, the implementation of ads wasn't a price increase, and instead, she sees it as a change of benefits.
Referring to an earlier decision, Rothstein says the net effect on a customer's bank balance might be the same as a price hike. Anyone who signs up for the service is effectively granting Amazon rights to do what it wants with its benefits.
Advert
Rothstein argues that anyone who clicks the terms and conditions box has pretty much agreed to this.
There was obvious uproar on Reddit, with one disgruntled customer writing: "That’s fine. My pirate ship has all the amenities these days."
Another added: "tl;dr enshittifying a service for profit doesn't constitute a price rise."
A third concluded: "I had prepaid a year of Prime and still got hit with ads. The fact that I would have had to pay more than agreed upon for the service I had already paid for should be grounds for a lawsuit. Funny how wording is always vague enough to screw us but clear enough to protect the company."
Advert
Rothstein has closed the book on the matter, and as the case has now been dismissed with prejudice, the plaintiffs aren't allowed to try again.