Amazon Seeks to Consolidate Cases in Fees, Negative Review Actions

Counsel for parties in a fraud suit involving Amazon Prime Video were unable to resolve their issues following Amazon’s March 1 motion to consolidate plaintiff Wilbert Napoleon’s case with In re Amazon Service Fee Litigation, said Amazon Wednesday in a motion (docket 2:24-cv-00186) for temporary stay in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle.

Napoleon’s Feb.9 complaint alleged Amazon “changed the deal” on its Prime Video offering by charging consumers an additional $2.99 a month for ad-free streaming (see 2402120001). In its motion to stay, Amazon said Napoleon’s theory “is not new” because other plaintiffs have already sued on the same core theory.

In that consolidated case, Dena Griffith challenges Amazon’s discontinuance of free Whole Foods Market delivery, another Prime membership benefit, said the motion. Like Napoleon, Griffith claims Amazon’s removal of that benefit violated Prime terms and consumer protection laws. Both cases are filed against the same defendant, arise from substantially similar allegations and claims, seek to represent overlapping putative classes, require determinations of substantially similar questions of fact and law, and are likely to involve "substantial duplication of effort for the assigned judges," it said.

As such, Amazon has filed a motion to consolidate the cases and requests that the court stay the Napoleon action pending resolution of Amazon’s consolidation motion to prevent the court and the parties “from engaging in efforts that might ultimately be moot if the cases are consolidated,” it said.

In another consolidated case bid, this one involving negative reviews, Amazon filed a proposed order (docket 2:24-cv-00240) Tuesday in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles, requesting consolidation of two cases recently removed from Los Angeles Superior Court. Its motion for consolidation of actions is intended to apply to all actions under which the order applies.

In her lawsuit, bringing claims under the California code and Unfair Competition Law, plaintiff Barbara Trevino alleges visitors to Amazon’s platforms are informed they must agree to its conditions of use as a precondition to using and benefiting from the platforms (see 2401110046). The conditions stifle Californians’ right to free speech, their right to receive lawful discourse and to remain informed, the complaint said.

Amazon’s conditions hyperlink to a “non-exhaustive list” of trade names that users are prohibited from commenting on, including Amazon Prime, Ring, Whole Foods, Woot and Zappos, the complaint said. The far-reaching conditions require users to agree on behalf of themselves and household members who use any service under their account, it said.

In the same court, Marcos Ramos, Sahara Antrim, Elda Soto, Marissa Barriga and Esme Nicolson-Singh allege that the conditions of use that Amazon imposes on consumers to use or shop its platforms prohibit them from mentioning Amazon or any of its brand names in any manner that “disparages or discredits” the company (see Ref:2401050050]). Amazon’s conduct is in “clear violation” of Section 1670.8 of the California Civil Code and Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, allege the plaintiffs.

Because of the current power of the internet and social media platforms to publicize a company's offerings of goods or services, Amazon has “significant incentive to minimize the negative publicity" it receives, said the complaint. Some companies, including Amazon, “have gone so far as to attempt to prohibit customers and potential customers from making negative statements about the goods or services they offer,” it said. They do so “to the detriment of consumers, potential consumers, and the public,” it said.

Amazon’s conditions of use threaten that it may terminate users’ rights to access and use Amazon’s platforms if they don’t comply, said the complaint. In so doing, Amazon “seeks to silence its customers from criticizing Amazon using such basic words as the company's own name and core products,” including Alexa, Amazon Prime, Kindle and Whole Foods, it said: “This chilling activity is the precise conduct prohibited by Section 1670.8.” Amazon’s conduct is unlawful because it’s aimed “to stifle California consumers' right to free speech, and the right of the California public to hear lawful discourse,” said the complaint.

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court upon a showing of good cause, Amazon's proposed order will apply to the Trevino and Ramos cases and any action filed in, transferred to, or removed to the Central California court relating to the subject matter at issue, and will apply to all actions included in docket 2:24-cv-00089, said the proposed order.