• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, February 7, 2025

Siding with Amazon, a federal judge on Friday dismissed a complaint by Prime subscribers who sued over the company's decision to insert ads in Amazon Prime video.

“It is undisputed that Amazon never promised Prime subscribers -- in writing or otherwise -- that its streaming service was, or would remain, ad-free,” U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Rothstein in Seattle said in a 15-page ruling dismissing the case.

The ruling comes in a battle dating to February 2024, when California resident Wilbert Napoleon sued Amazon over its then-new decision to serve ads in streaming videos (excluding videos people purchase or rent), unless subscribers paid an extra $2.99 a month.

The company rolled out the ad tier in January 2024.

Napoleon alleged his complaint 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.

They characterized Amazon's move as a price hike, arguing that the company's Video terms prohibited price hikes during their one-year subscription term.

Rothstein rejected that argument, writing that removing a benefit -- ad-free streaming -- wasn't the same as a price increase.

“It is true that Amazon’s introduction of commercials to its streaming service, for those Prime members who chose to pay more to keep their streaming ad-free, ultimately had an effect on those subscribers’ wallets tantamount to a 'price increase,'” she wrote. “The court, however, is compelled to maintain the distinction between a benefit removal and a price increase.”

“The introduction of commercials to Prime Video alone did not result in any out-of-pocket price increase whatsoever,” Rothstein wrote. “The only subscribers who experienced any increase in price were those who voluntarily chose to incur one by affirmatively opting in to the $2.99-a-month charge to avoid ads.”

She added that Amazon's terms of service didn't require the company to offer an ad-free option at all.

“It would be an anomalous result (and one not supported by the language in the contracts) to hold that while Amazon could remove a benefit, it could not offer subscribers the option to purchase one without violating the parties’ agreements, she wrote.

Rothstein said the dismissal was without prejudice, meaning that the plaintiffs can attempt to beef up their claims and bring them again within 30 days.