Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Napoleon v. Amazon
Napoleon v. Amazon
1 Table of Contents
2 I. Introduction. ............................................................................................................................... 1
1 I. Introduction.
2 1. Amazon.com Inc. sells a subscription service called Prime. For over a decade, it
3 included ad-free streaming of movies and tv shows. For years, people purchased and renewed their
4 Amazon Prime subscriptions believing that they would include ad-free streaming.
5 2. But last month, Amazon changed the deal. To stream movies and tv shows without
6 ads, Amazon customers must now pay an additional $2.99 per month. This is true even for people
7 who purchased the yearly, ad-free subscription, and who are now mid-way through their subscription.
8 This is not fair, because these subscribers already paid for the ad-free version; these subscribers
9 should not have to pay an additional $2.99/month for something that they already paid for.
10 3. For years, Amazon advertised that its Prime subscription included ad-free streaming of
11 movies and tv shows. Like other consumers, Plaintiff purchased the Prime subscription, believing
12 that it would include ad-free streaming of movies and tv shows. But it does not. Plaintiff brings this
13 case for himself and for other Amazon Prime customers.
14 II. Parties.
15 4. Plaintiff Wilbert Napoleon is domiciled in Eastvale, California.
16 5. The proposed class includes citizens of every state.
17 6. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
18 business in Seattle, Washington.
19 III. Jurisdiction and Venue.
20 7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The amount
21 in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and the matter is a class action in
22 which one or more members of the proposed class are citizens of a state different from Defendant.
23 8. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because (among other reasons) its
24 principal place of business is in Washington.
25 9. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Amazon resides in this District,
26 at its Seattle headquarters.
27
28 Class Action Complaint 1 Dovel & Luner LLP
Case No. 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Case 2:24-cv-00186 Document 1 Filed 02/09/24 Page 4 of 18
1 IV. Facts.
2 A. Amazon’s changes to Prime Video.
3 10. Amazon.com Inc. (“Amazon”) sells a subscription called Prime. The subscription is
4 very popular—over one hundred million Americans are subscribers. Subscribers can choose an
5 annual or monthly term, and many subscribers choose the annual term, which is offered at a discount
6 as compared to the monthly term.
7 11. A subscription to Prime includes access Amazon’s video streaming service, Prime
8 Video. Prime Video was launched in 2011. According to Amazon, a Prime subscription now included
9 “unlimited, commercial-free, instant streaming” of movies and tv shows on the platform, at no
10 additional cost:
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 12. Between 2011 and 2023, Amazon continued to offer “commercial-free” access to
21 Prime Video. And, consumers continued to subscribe to Amazon Prime, expecting to receive
22 commercial-free access to movies and tv shows.
23 13. But in 2024, Amazon changed its terms. Amazon introduced ads to Prime Video. To
24 turn off the ads, subscribers must now pay an additional $2.99 a month. This is true even for people
25 who have yearly subscriptions to Prime—they must pay an additional $2.99/month to get the ad-free
26 Prime Video that they already paid for.
27
28 Class Action Complaint 2 Dovel & Luner LLP
Case No. 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Case 2:24-cv-00186 Document 1 Filed 02/09/24 Page 5 of 18
1 services, cannot reasonably avoid this injury. And Amazon’s actions offer no countervailing
2 benefits—misrepresenting its service harms both consumers and honest competition.
3 21. Amazon’s actions are also unlawful. As explained in further detail below, they
4 constitute a breach of contract.
5 D. Plaintiff was misled by Amazon’s misrepresentations.
6 22. In June 2023, Mr. Napoleon renewed his annual Prime subscription while living in
7 Eastvale, California.
8 23. Based on Amazon’s actions, Plaintiff believed that he was purchasing a yearly
9 subscription to Amazon Prime. He further believed that the Amazon Prime would include free
10 streaming of movies and tv shows for the duration of his subscription. But, it did not. Instead, to have
11 ad-free streaming, Plaintiff must pay an additional $2.99 a month.
12 E. Amazon breached its contract and warranties to Plaintiff.
13 24. When Mr. Napoleon purchased the Amazon Prime subscription as described above, he
14 accepted the offer that Amazon made, and thus, a contract was formed at the time of purchase. The
15 offer was to provide an Amazon Prime subscription that included ad-free streaming of tv shows and
16 movies, for the price of the Prime annual subscription.
17 25. The offer to provide ad-free streaming of tv shows and movies was a specific and
18 material term of the contract. It was also an affirmation of fact about the services, and a promise
19 relating to the service.
20 26. Mr. Napoleon performed his obligations under the contract by paying for the annual
21 subscription.
22 27. Amazon breached its contract by failing to provide Mr. Napoleon access to ad-free
23 streaming of movies and tv shows for the duration of the subscription. Defendant also breached
24 warranties for the same reasons.
25
26
27
28 Class Action Complaint 4 Dovel & Luner LLP
Case No. 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Case 2:24-cv-00186 Document 1 Filed 02/09/24 Page 7 of 18
1 VI. Claims.
2 Count I: Breach of Contract
3 (By Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class)
4 36. Plaintiff incorporates each and every factual allegation set forth above.
5 37. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and the Nationwide Class. In
6 the alternative, Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and the California Subclass.
7 38. Plaintiff and class members entered into contracts with Amazon when they placed
8 orders to purchase or renew Amazon Prime on Amazon’s website.
9 39. The contracts provided that Plaintiff and class members would pay Amazon for the
10 subscription ordered.
11 40. The contracts further required that Amazon provide Plaintiff and class members with
12 an Amazon Prime subscription that included ad-free access to movies and tv shows. This was a
13 specific and material term of the contracts.
14 41. Plaintiff and class members paid Amazon for the subscription ordered, and satisfied all
15 other conditions of their contracts.
16 42. Amazon breached the contracts with Plaintiff and class members by failing to provide
17 ad-free streaming of tv shows and movies as promised.
18 43. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breaches, Plaintiff and class members
19 were deprived of the benefit of their bargained-for exchange, and have suffered damages in an
20 amount to be established at trial.
21 Count II: Breach of Express Warranty
22 (By Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class)
23 44. Plaintiff incorporates each and every factual allegation set forth above.
24 45. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and the Nationwide Class. In
25 the alternative, Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and the California Subclass.
26
27
28 Class Action Complaint 7 Dovel & Luner LLP
Case No. 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Case 2:24-cv-00186 Document 1 Filed 02/09/24 Page 10 of 18
1 46. Amazon, as the supplier and seller of the Amazon Prime subscription, issued material,
2 written warranties by advertising that the subscription included access to ad-free streaming of tv
3 shows and movies. This was an affirmation of fact about the service (i.e., a representation about what
4 the subscription included) and a promise relating to the service.
5 47. These warranties were part of the basis of the bargain and Plaintiff and members of the
6 class relied on this warranty.
7 48. In fact, the subscriptions did not include ad-free streaming of tv shows and movies.
8 Thus, the warranties were breached.
9 49. Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of this breach of warranty, by mailing a
10 notice letter to Defendant’s registered agent and Defendant’s headquarters on February 7, 2024.
11 50. Plaintiff and the class were injured as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s
12 breach, and this breach was a substantial factor in causing harm, because they (a) overpaid for the
13 service because the service was sold at a price premium due to the warranty, and/or (b) did not
14 receive the service as warranted that they were promised.
15 Count III: Quasi-Contract
16 (By Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class)
17 51. Plaintiff incorporates each and every factual allegation set forth above.
18 52. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and the Nationwide Class. In
19 the alternative, Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and the California Subclass.
20 53. As alleged in detail above, Defendant’s false and misleading advertising caused
21 Plaintiff and the class to purchase the service and to pay a price premium for the service.
22 54. In this way, Defendant received a direct and unjust benefit, at Plaintiff’s expense.
23 55. (In the alternative only), due to Defendant’s misrepresentations, its contracts with
24 Plaintiff are void or voidable.
25 56. Plaintiff and the class seek restitution.
26
27
28 Class Action Complaint 8 Dovel & Luner LLP
Case No. 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Case 2:24-cv-00186 Document 1 Filed 02/09/24 Page 11 of 18
1 65. This caused Plaintiff and the class to pay more for their subscription, and deprived
2 them of their expectancy interest in receiving the subscription as advertised.
3 66. The harm to Plaintiff and the class greatly outweighs the public utility of Defendant’s
4 conduct. There is no public utility to misrepresenting the features of a service. Plaintiff and the
5 class’s injury was not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.
6 Misleading consumers about services only injures healthy competition and harms consumers.
7 Deceptive Acts or Practices
8 67. As alleged in detail above, Defendant’s representations that their services included ad-
9 free access to tv shows and movies on Prime Video were false and misleading.
10 68. Defendant’s representations were likely to deceive, and did deceive, Plaintiff and other
11 reasonable consumers. Defendant knew, or should have known through the exercise of reasonable
12 care, that these statements were inaccurate and misleading.
13 ***
14 69. Defendant’s misrepresentations were intended to induce reliance. Defendant’s
15 misrepresentations were a factor in Plaintiff’s purchase decision.
16 70. Subclass-wide reliance can be inferred because Defendant’s misrepresentations were
17 material, i.e., a reasonable consumer would consider them important in deciding whether to buy the
18 services.
19 71. Defendant’s misrepresentations were a substantial factor and proximate cause in
20 causing damages and losses to Plaintiff and the class.
21 72. Plaintiff and the class were injured as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s
22 conduct because (a) they overpaid for the services because the services were sold at a price premium
23 due to the misrepresentation, and/or (b) they did not receive the services they were promised, and
24 received services with market values lower than the promised market values.
25
26
27
28 Class Action Complaint 10 Dovel & Luner LLP
Case No. 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Case 2:24-cv-00186 Document 1 Filed 02/09/24 Page 13 of 18
1 92. Defendant’s misrepresentations were intended to induce reliance, and Plaintiff saw,
2 read, and reasonably relied on them when purchasing the service. Defendant’s misrepresentations
3 were a substantial factor in Plaintiff’s purchase decision.
4 93. In addition, class-wide reliance can be inferred because Defendant’s
5 misrepresentations were material, i.e., a reasonable consumer would consider them important in
6 deciding whether to buy the service.
7 94. Defendant’s misrepresentations were a substantial factor and proximate cause in
8 causing damages and losses to Plaintiff and the subclass.
9 95. Plaintiff and the subclass were injured as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s
10 conduct because (a) they overpaid for the services because the services were sold at a price premium
11 due to the misrepresentation, and/or (b) they did not receive the services they were promised, and
12 received services with market values lower than the promised market values.
13 96. Accordingly, pursuant to California Civil Code § 1780(a)(2), Plaintiff, on behalf of
14 himself and all other members of the subclass, seeks injunctive relief.
15 97. CLRA § 1782 NOTICE. On February 9, 2024, Plaintiff mailed a notice letter to
16 Defendant at its Seattle, Washington headquarters. This letter provided notice of Defendant’s
17 violation of the CLRA and demanded that Defendant correct the unlawful, unfair, false and/or
18 deceptive practices alleged here. If Defendant does not fully correct the problem for Plaintiff and for
19 each member of the class within 30 days of receipt, Plaintiff and the class will seek all relief allowed
20 under the CLRA.
21 98. A CLRA venue declaration is attached.
22 Count VII: Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law
23 (By Plaintiff and the California Subclass)
24 99. Plaintiff incorporates each and every factual allegation set forth above.
25 100. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and members of the California
26 subclass.
27
28 Class Action Complaint 13 Dovel & Luner LLP
Case No. 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Case 2:24-cv-00186 Document 1 Filed 02/09/24 Page 16 of 18
1 101. Defendant has violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) by engaging in
2 unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair conduct (i.e., violating each of the three prongs of the UCL).
3 The Unlawful Prong
4 102. Defendant engaged in unlawful conduct by violating the CLRA and FAL, as alleged
5 above and incorporated here.
6 The Deceptive Prong
7 103. As alleged in detail above, Defendant’s representations that the service includes ad-
8 free streaming of movies and tv shows on Amazon Prime were false and misleading.
9 104. Defendant’s representations were misleading to Plaintiff and other reasonable
10 consumers.
11 105. Plaintiff relied upon Defendant’s misleading representations and omissions, as
12 detailed above.
13 The Unfair Prong
14 106. As alleged in detail above, Defendant committed “unfair” acts by falsely representing
15 that the Prime subscription includes ad-free streaming of movies and tv shows on Amazon Prime
16 Video.
17 107. Defendant violated established public policy by violating the CLRA and FAL, as
18 alleged above and incorporated here. The unfairness of this practice is tethered to a legislatively
19 declared policy (that of the CLRA and FAL).
20 108. The harm to Plaintiff and the class greatly outweighs the public utility of Defendant’s
21 conduct. There is no public utility to misrepresenting the features of a service. This injury was not
22 outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. Misleading services only
23 injure healthy competition and harm consumers.
24 109. Plaintiff and the class could not have reasonably avoided this injury. As alleged above,
25 Defendant’s representations were deceptive to reasonable consumers like Plaintiff.
26
27
28 Class Action Complaint 14 Dovel & Luner LLP
Case No. 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Case 2:24-cv-00186 Document 1 Filed 02/09/24 Page 17 of 18