Amazon's updated terms of service now contain a clause that may take many subscribers by surprise. The online giant is revoking your right to file a class-action lawsuit against it if a dispute arises, according to its Conditions of Use page.
On Friday, Amazon sent an email to subscribers explaining that it will now settle any disputes via arbitration. Customers who have continued to use the corporation’s services after Aug. 14 implicitly waived their rights to bring new class-action suits against the online retail giant.
The language used in the Conditions of Use page states this new legal limitation outright.
"You and we agree that any dispute or claim relating in any way to your use of any Amazon service, or to any products or services sold or distributed by Amazon or through amazon.com, will be resolved by binding arbitration rather than in court," the document reads. "There is no judge or jury in arbitration, and court review of an arbitration award is limited. A neutral arbitrator will resolve the dispute or claim and must follow the terms of this agreement as a court would."
A class-action waiver is also included, which prevents customers from filing requests for arbitration together. Although Amazon is allowed to resolve batches of arbitration proceedings under detailed mass arbitration rules, each dispute must be filed individually.
Amazon’s language frames the change as a positive for its customers, since the company pledges to "pay most of the cost" for customers who choose to arbitrate disputes.
A representative for Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A company spokesperson told CNET’s sibling site PCMag over email that Amazon has and will continue to "continually update our Conditions of Use to better serve our customers."
"We determined that reinstating the arbitration clause will offer customers a fast, cost-effective way to resolve disputes while still giving them the option of going to small claims court," the spokesperson wrote.
But at the end of the day, that arbitration clause may serve to stifle customer disputes by making it more difficult to seek financial restitution.
There are very few exceptions to Amazon's new arbitration clause, and none of them are particularly great for customers. You can still take the company to small claims court, but the compensation you can receive is extremely limited.
Before the terms of service update, it only took one motivated individual to perform research, consult legal professionals and get the ball rolling on a class-action lawsuit. From there, other affected parties were able to sign on and receive compensation with comparatively little effort.
That's not the case with an arbitration policy, which has a higher bar for individual effort and personal costs that may dissuade many customers from hashing out their financial disputes.
Before any arbitration proceeding can be filed, customers must submit a dispute claim to Amazon itself, giving the company 60 days to resolve it. If Amazon doesn't respond during that two-month window, you can move on to the actual arbitration process.
Filing an official complaint with JAMS, Amazon's chosen third-party arbitrator, requires you to pay a $250 fee upfront, which is a financial hurdle that the average class-action member likely won't or can't be bothered with.
From there on, "a neutral arbitrator will resolve the dispute or claim and must follow the terms of [the Conditions of Use] as a court would," according to Amazon. "The arbitrator shall issue a written award that states the disposition of each claim and provides a concise statement of the essential findings and conclusions on which it is based."
If you're keeping a running tally of every hurdle presented to customers by the arbitration clause, you'll realize that this process demands more time and money than any class-action lawsuit settlement claim does.
Technically, a critical mass of maligned customers could initiate mass arbitration and be compensated with more money than would ever be awarded to them in a class-action lawsuit. In fact, Amazon previously revoked an arbitration clause in its terms of service in 2021, after 75,000 people simultaneously filed disputes alleging Alexa was recording them without their consent.
Now, the e-commerce giant is trying to force customers into individualized claims once again, likely betting that the legal red tape of the arbitration process will put off many affected customers from ever fighting for financial restitution in the first place.
The terms of service update only limits US Amazon customers from proposing new class-action suits, which means any case filed prior to Aug. 14 will be allowed to proceed.
That means a bevy of existing lawsuits, including separate cases that allege Amazon purposefully shortened the lifespan of its first- and second-generation Fire TV Sticks and violated the privacy of millions of Americans through Ring camera AI features, will still have their day in court.
The e-commerce giant recently settled a $2.5 billion class-action lawsuit that alleged it had used deceptive "dark patterns" to push customers into paying for Prime subscriptions, before making it intentionally difficult to cancel the recurring charge.
Amazon admitted no wrongdoing as the case concluded, but more than $1.5 billion was earmarked to refund customers after legal fees were paid out. A costly, high-profile case like this one may have been part of the reason why the company changed its terms of service.
Changes to Amazon's subscriber agreement won't insulate the company from litigation by government agencies, so it will still be subject to lawsuits filed by the US Federal Trade Commission.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Snotnose on Monday August 24, @01:17AM (13 children)
a class action lawsuit.
Being the dumbest idiot in the land and president of the US should be 2 different people.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday August 24, @02:18AM (5 children)
There really should be bigger penalties for "unconscionable contract" - starting with recoverable legal fees + treble damages when unconscionable contract has been demonstrated.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aafcac on Monday August 24, @11:02PM (4 children)
There should also be a different set of standards for contracts that are one party written to be take it or leave it than ones where there's negotiation and probably another for when the previous contract is changed.
The whole business that everybody is going to be spending hundreds of dollars on an attorney so they understand the degree to which a contract they're being pressured to agree to abuses their rights was never realistic. Back a hundred years ago when most people never entered into a formal license more than a couple times a year that might have been realistic. But, across the course of a typical month most people are asked to agree to enough different licenses that it wouldn't be possible to actually understand any of them.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 25, @02:38AM (3 children)
> contracts that are one party written to be take it or leave it than ones where there's negotiation and probably another for when the previous contract is changed.
1985 or so, I signed some kind of contract for my AT&T calling card.
1994 or so, AT&T tripled their calling card rates, which had already been more than triple what competitors' calling cards were charging at the time, but I continued to use the AT&T card in part because I had the number memorized. So, out of the blue I get a bill for $30 from them for what would have been $10 on last month's rates and should have been $3 at "market rates" at the time. I chose not to pay. They chose to send me to collections. My last conversation (of many) with a collections agent ended with me asking "show me the contract I signed which gives you the right to triple your rates without notifying me other than sending the bill."
1998 or so, I receive a letter from AT&T with their new "customer agreement" which included in part "we may change our rates from time to time, you can always see our latest rates on our website at..." and "to agree to these terms simply pay your bill" I never paid the bill.
2004 or so a telemarketer responded with solem indignation "you, you just can't tell us to never call again, we are AT&T. Well, honey, I just did and the next time an AT&T rep calls me I'll be taking your precious employer to court for a $500 per instance DO NOT CALL LIST telemarketing harassment judgement." The calls actually stopped.
2016 or so, the last AT&T reps arrived in person at my home attempting to sell me internet over twisted copper pair - I had told the previous 3 in no uncertain terms that AT&T will never get my future business but maybe this pair finally got the message clear enough when I stated something along the lines of "off my private property and never return, the next time I'll be calling the Sheriff." Or maybe it was when I cut down the old copper lines from the pole to our house...
I might actually have tried an iPhone before Android if they had partnered with a different carrier. I would have regretted it and switched later, probably around the time they effectively bricked the iPad One with an OS update and replaced the bulletproof glass of the One with the clear compressed tissue paper they started using on the iPad 4. If I were asked to name a company douchier than AT&T, Apple would certainly spring to mind.
One sided contracts between big business and individuals are somewhat unavoidable, but their ever-shifting underhanded implementations are not. Unfortunately, not enough people vote with their wallets against even the worst offenders.
Somehow this reminds me of my observation: Apple products are for dumb people who want to look smart, and poor people who want to look rich. With a market like that, they'll sign the souls of their children over to the company just to get a new shiny.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Tuesday August 25, @06:07AM (2 children)
I switched from AT&T for cell service when they decided that they had the right to mess with the software on the phone that I owned without permission. I had the phone unlocked and had to repeat the process due to them messing with it. I don't care what the contract says, it's my phone and they shouldn't be updating it without permission. Especially if it re-locks the thing.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 25, @12:21PM (1 child)
Re-locking your unlocked phone after your have terminated the relationship with them is theft. Good luck getting a judgement, let alone compensation for your time and effort.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Tuesday August 25, @10:23PM
It was before I switched, but the phone was off contract by then. I won't be signing up with them again, which is a shame as there are hardly any alternatives. But I owned the phone, they had no right damaging it.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24, @03:05AM (6 children)
> ... a class action lawsuit.
Easier solution, stop dealing with Amazon. No purchases == no arbitration or lawsuits necessary.
I've never bought anything from Amazon. I haven't noticed any major damage to my lifestyle by this choice, often other sources are cheaper (if not quite as convenient). Note, I'm not lily white--a few Amazon boxes have come here, from eBay sellers who were using Amazon fulfillment, unannounced.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 24, @03:28AM (5 children)
You're not wrong, of course. But, have you compared the tedious terms of service amongst all those corporations that you do business with? No matter how shocking or outrageous you find Amazon's "agreement", you can probably find similar "agreements" elsewhere. Start with Google, Facebook, and Microsoft for terms of use and "agreements" that you have never agreed to. Have you purchased a car in recent years? Did you actually consent to being monitored and tracked, or did you just go along to get along?
The proper course of action would be for the Attorneys General of all fifty states to file their own class action suits against this sort of nonsense. Even the very biggest of corporations are going to notice, when they are sued for the same conduct in all fifty states. They either cough up a lot of money in legal fees, or face a summary judgement. Summary judgements might run into tens, or even hundreds of billions of dollars - IN EACH STATE!
Alternative für Deutschland
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday August 24, @05:44PM (4 children)
Have you accepted employment in the past 20 years? Did you really accept those "employment at will" terms, or did you just have no other choice?
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 24, @09:41PM (3 children)
Employment is different from those "agreements" under discussion. When you are employed, you actually get something in return for your services and/or labor. You can count the money you recieve each pay period, you can budget and spend it (or don't budget, just spend it). If you're not happy with the terms of your employment, you are free to move on, and try another employer. With the services under discussion, the corporation does all it can possibly do to lock you in, so that it is a headache, or even a nightmare, to seek new relationships. Worst of all, you are never actually told what the transactions entail, in their entirety. It's all hidden behind walls of text that you are never meant to decipher.
You're right, I have never held a job where I dictated the agreement. I've always had to accept whatever the boss said the terms of employment were - right up until I decided that I no longer accepted those terms. And, there was always a labor board to complain to, if and when the terms of employment were so heinous as to require governmental or legal attention.
And, you seem to be ignoring an important point here. Anything on MY COMPUTER belongs to me. Amazon, Google, etc are profiting from my monetary investment into a machine that connects to the internet. Rarely do employees have a monetary investment in their work environment. In the case of my devices, I OWN the devices. They aren't on loan from Facebook, as part of the agreement.
I could go on, but stated simply, agreements with tech companies aren't very much like employment contracts.
Alternative für Deutschland
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday August 24, @10:49PM (2 children)
>I OWN the devices. They aren't on loan from Facebook, as part of the agreement.
The gaming companies are trying hard to change that.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by aafcac on Monday August 24, @11:04PM (1 child)
They are, but that's a large part of why I don't own any systems that aren't cracked. I'm fine buying old physical games, but I should at least have the ability to back them up in case the original fails.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday August 25, @02:41AM
Back in the Atari computer days (late 80s) I wouldn't bother to play a game that I couldn't back up multiple times onto floppies, that was just too much time investment in something that might die and only be replaceable by buying another $50 copy ($50 in 1987 is about $150 in 2026) especially when there were more cracked games available than I had free time to enjoy.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 4, Touché) by Frosty Piss on Monday August 24, @03:39AM (1 child)
It's extreamly Unlikly that would A) discourage a lawyer, and B) stand up in court.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Chromium_One on Monday August 24, @02:58PM
It wouldn't stand up in court. As I understand things, this is one of those things were a specific right simply cannot be voided by contract and Amazon needs to get taken to the cleaners for trying it.
When you live in a sick society, everything you do is wrong.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24, @05:18AM (4 children)
That would seem to include disputes with 3rd party sellers on amazon.com
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS decided long ago that a contract clause requiring you to waive your right to sue was okay. So now practically every contract, from a ticket at the dry cleaner to car or house purchase, includes such a waiver.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday August 24, @01:10PM (3 children)
It's worse than that.
SCOTUS has ruled, in some of the more important cases you've never heard of, that:
1. You can "agree" to waive your right to sue or file a class action.
2. You can be coerced into waiving your right to sue by contracts you pretty much can't live without or are in some places required to buy by law, like electric and water service.
3. You can "agree" to waive your right to sue your employer for any reason. Because apparently having a job is considered optional and voluntary in a society where if you don't work you don't eat.
4. You can "agree" to waive your right to sue or file a class action even if your state passes a law saying that's illegal. Yes, even when contracting with a company who is headquartered and/or incorporated in your state, and even if they only do business in that state.
5. If you "agree" to waive your right to sue or file a class action in any deal with a business, that can be applied to all other business you conduct with that business. So, for instance, Disney argued that because somebody's $10 a month Disney Plus subscription had these clauses in it, they were not legally responsible for his wife's death at Disney World due to food cross-contamination. They backed off of that not because it was legally incorrect but because of the bad press about it.
Basically, in this country, if you aren't rich, you are no longer able to hold rich people or corporations accountable using the civil laws of the country.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by RootTwo on Monday August 24, @02:15PM (1 child)
I wonder what states with laws that let individuals act as their own attorneys general? Sort of a deputy state AG.
If there was a suitable law that let an individual act as an AG, could they bring a class action on behalf of the people in the state?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday August 24, @03:09PM
Class actions are generally a civil matter, and don't need the government to be the one leading the charge. What they need is some number of named plaintiffs who are part of the collection of people who have (allegedly) been wronged, and some lawyers willing to take up the case.
The anti-class-action people will claim that the efforts to put an end to them are because the lawyers are the only one benefiting from bringing such cases. This isn't actually true: When cases are won, you can get a payout if you are part of the class the action was brought on behalf of, and while the payout isn't all that much that's because it's divided among thousands or millions of people. But more importantly, the threat of a class-action claim is what prevents megacorps from doing things like charging 1 million people $10 for no legally justifiable reason secure in the knowledge that no individual will have the time or resources to get into a big fight over $10 even though they just stole $10 million.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24, @02:37PM
Disney argued even worse than that -- there was no active subscription. Disney argued that because the husband had previously accepted a free trial of Disney Plus many years prior, and that had included a forced arbitration clause, the wife's estate could not sue them.
While obviously they dropped the issue so we don't know for sure, I suspect Disney probably was legally incorrect, perhaps only because the estate was the plaintiff and not the husband.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Dr Spin on Monday August 24, @06:56AM
at a "Terms of Service Bar"?
I have been serving for a term of over 10 years. Do I get a a whole pint of single malt?
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by takochan on Monday August 24, @10:56AM (1 child)
It shouldn't be ever possible to waive your rights to the court system, especially in lopsided contracts between parties with extremely lopsided size and power like this.
But.. Amerika... fxxk yeah!
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday August 24, @11:10PM
It should be available and it used to be fairly useful. You might want to sell your business as is, which requires a waiver of their right to later sue. Or perhaps engage in an activity that's known to be somewhat risky and want help of some sort, being able to waive right to sue over things that are truly not the fault of the contracted help helps keep the pricing down a lot.
The problem here is that it's effectively a take it or leave it waiver of your rights without actually getting anything in exchange for the deal. And with an increasingly small pool of alternatives covering things that are increasingly less optional it's become a real problem.
The solution here is to outright ban the practice from contracts that don't involve both parties negotiating over terms or where the restrictions don't come with identifiable benefit to the party that's agreeing to give up whatever right. And completely ban it if there's an insufficient number of alternatives that are free of the restriction.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ledow on Monday August 24, @12:03PM (1 child)
(shrug)
"Your statutory rights are not affected".
In any sensible country you CANNOT waive your right to such things, it's simply not possible.
Only in America can a company just "opt out" of basic legislative recourse.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday August 24, @05:54PM
>Only in America can a company just "opt out" of basic legislative recourse.
The secret sauce is just like TACO. Claim the moon, own it until somebody tells you you don't, then drag your feet as long as possible before "giving it back."
Next time somebody brings a class action against Amazon this clause will be brought up in pre-trial negotiations, but it most likely won't have any weight in the actual trial proceedings - other than a delay tactic, raising the cost of suing them.
Of course, the U.S. has a wide variety of judicial venues, the unwary might stumble into a courtroom where the judge does uphold this unenforceable "agreement" as binding - but so far, I believe most courts/judges would not.
And again I am reminded of the "agreement" I was handed, asked to sign, which started off with "you shall not disclose the existence of this agreement." I suppose it was a secret re-employment filter after they laid everybody off. They offered nothing whatsoever in exchange for signing it, so it's not a contract - but behind closed doors I suspect they more readily re-hired those who did sign and respect it.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DadaDoofy on Monday August 24, @06:09PM
Think about it for a minute. It's a terms of service agreement. Notwithstanding TFS's clickbait title, it can't prevent you from filing a class action lawsuit. What it can prevent is you continuing to receive their service after you have done so.
No skin off my back. I'm pretty certain I wouldn't want to continue doing business with them under such circumstances anyway.