Image: Silver Wings / shutterstock.com
Viele Prime-Kunden waren fassungslos: Erst bezahlt man für ein Abo – und plötzlich laufen trotzdem Werbespots. Wer weiterhin ohne Werbung streamen wollte, sollte zusätzlich 2,99 Euro im Monat bezahlen. Für Hunderttausende war das ein klarer Fall von „So war das doch nicht vereinbart!“. Doch jetzt hat ein Gericht zunächst anders entschieden.
Was bedeutet dieses Urteil für Verbraucher? Ist damit alles entschieden? Und müssen Kunden solche Änderungen künftig einfach akzeptieren?
Why the lawsuit was filed in the first place
In early 2024, Amazon introduced ads on its Prime Video streaming service. At the same time, the company began offering an additional ad-free version for a monthly surcharge of 2.99 euros.
Many users felt they were being treated unfairly as a result. After all, they had already paid for their Prime membership and had assumed that there would be no significant changes to their streaming service.
The Saxony Consumer Protection Agency therefore organized a large class-action lawsuit. Approximately 324,000 consumers joined the lawsuit. The goal was to secure compensation and establish that Amazon was not permitted to unilaterally worsen the terms and conditions.
Why the court initially ruled in Amazon's favor
However, the Bavarian Higher Regional Court dismissed the lawsuit. In the judges’ view, Amazon had not made a binding commitment to its customers that Prime Video would remain permanently ad-free.
The court also found no clear obligation in the contract documents to offer the streaming service permanently without advertisements. Therefore, the judges found that there was no basis for a claim for damages.
Another factor also played a role: Prime is more than just a video service. For example, membership also includes faster deliveries, other digital services, and additional benefits. The court therefore focused on the fact that not every Prime customer actually uses the video service and that the overall package is the core of the membership.
The final word is far from being said
Anyone who thinks the issue is settled is mistaken.
The Saxony Consumer Protection Agency has already announced that it will appeal the ruling. This means the Federal Court of Justice could eventually hear the case.
In addition, other legal proceedings are underway regarding the launch of the ad-supported service on Prime Video. In a separate case, the Munich I Regional Court took a much more critical view of Amazon’s actions in the first instance. Among other things, that case centered on the question of whether Amazon was even permitted to unilaterally change its terms and conditions. However, that ruling is also not yet final.
What Consumers Can Learn from This Case
This case clearly demonstrates how important the exact terms of a contract are. Many customers rely on their expectations or on how a product has been used over the years. In court, however, what often matters is what was actually agreed upon and what can be proven.
However, this does not mean that companies are allowed to make just any change. Whether price changes, new advertisements, or reduced services are permissible always depends on the specific terms of the contract and the circumstances of each individual case.
That's why it's in consumers' best interest not to simply click away notifications about contract changes. Especially with streaming services, cloud offerings, or other digital subscriptions, even small changes can have a big impact.
Equally important: A ruling in one case does not automatically mean that all legal issues have been resolved. Particularly when it comes to major consumer issues, multiple cases often proceed simultaneously—with different legal focuses and, in some cases, different outcomes.
Who will win in the end?
For Amazon, the ruling is an important victory for now. For consumers, however, it represents a setback for the time being. Nevertheless, the legal dispute is not yet over. If a higher court were to rule differently later on, the legal assessment could change fundamentally once again.
Until then, the case remains a compelling example of just how complicated digital contracts have become. Streaming subscriptions are constantly changing; services are expanded or restricted, and new pricing models are introduced. This makes it increasingly difficult for consumers to keep track of everything.
If “Premium” suddenly means ads, something’s gone wrong
Even though Amazon initially won this case, it still leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths. Many people associate a paid premium subscription with a clear promise: pay, log in, and enjoy content without commercial breaks. When this experience is changed retroactively and a surcharge is suddenly imposed for what was previously the standard, it understandably leads to frustration.
Legally, a company might get away with this in individual cases. But is everything that’s legally permissible also fair to loyal customers? Our view is clear: Digital subscription models are becoming increasingly complex and are gradually shifting the scope of services. Consumers shouldn’t simply accept such changes but should carefully examine what rights they actually have. After all, trust is often worth more than short-term additional revenue.
Do you have legal questions about advertising on Amazon Prime? Book a consultation now and learn more about your rights!
to the lawyerAt a fixed price of 169 EURO (gross)
