• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, November 26, 2024

Amazon is pressing a federal judge to throw out a class-action complaint by seven Prime users who are suing over the company's decision to insert ads in streaming videos.

The Prime users allege that Amazon violated its contract with them by charging an additional $2.99 a month fee for ad-free service after they had already purchased $139 year-long subscriptions for access to ad-free videos.

But Amazon argues in papers filed late last week that the Prime subscribers “received exactly what they bargained for.”

“Plaintiffs continue to have access to the same suite of Prime benefits, including full access to Prime Video,” Amazon argued to U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Rothstein in Seattle.

Amazon's newest papers come in a battle dating to February, when California resident Wilbert Napoleon sued Amazon over its then-new decision to serve ads in videos, unless subscribers paid extra fees.

Amazon said in September 2023 that it planned to introduce ads in the movies and television shows streamed by Prime members, unless they paid an extra $2.99 a month. The company isn't inserting ads in videos that people purchase or rent.

The company rolled out the new ad tier in January.

Napoleon alleged that he renewed his annual subscription to Prime in June 2023 under the belief that the service would continue to offer ad-free streaming. He pointed in the complaint to a February 2011 Amazon announcement introducing Prime video, which stated that Prime members would receive “unlimited, commercial-free streaming.”

Other Prime members joined his suit in September, claiming in an amended class-action complaint that Amazon broke its contract with subscribers and violated a Washington consumer protection law. Two of the plaintiffs said they are paying $2.99 a month to watch videos without ads.

Amazon first urged Rothstein to throw out the lawsuit in October, arguing that it hadn't promised the video service would always be free of ads.

Napoleon and the others countered earlier this month that the “Prime Video” terms -- which differ from the more general Amazon Prime terms -- provide that any increases in subscription fees won't apply until renewal.

But Amazon contends in its newest papers that the plaintiffs are not “Prime Video” subscribers, but instead “have free access to Prime Video” because they are Prime members.

The company says the Prime Video terms apply to people who subscribe only to that video service, which costs $8.99 a month, and don't apply to people who subscribe to the more expensive Prime service, which also includes other benefits like free two-day shipping of many items.

Amazon also says the Prime Video terms never promised the service would remain ad-free.

The company additionally argues that none of the plaintiffs were harmed by the decision to insert ads in videos.

“All seven Plaintiffs continue to enjoy full, free access to Prime Video as part of their Prime subscriptions,” Amazon writes.

“Five of the seven plaintiffs chose not to pay for the ad-free upgrade, so have no conceivable claim to monetary harm,” the company adds. “The two plaintiffs who voluntarily chose to pay for the ad-free upgrade caused their own 'harm' (if any).”

Rothstein hasn't yet said when she will decide whether the Prime subscribers can proceed with their claims.