Amazon Is Being Forced To Pay $2.5 Billion for Making It Easier To Sign Up for Prime
The Federal Trade Commission reached a settlement with Amazon in its yearslong lawsuit against the company for "dark patterns" in Prime sign up and cancellation.
Before Amazon's multi-billion-dollar settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Thursday, it was anyone's guess how Americans were supposed to know that clicking "No, I don't want free shipping" at checkout really meant "No, I don't want to sign up for Amazon Prime." Fortunately, the FTC has stepped in.
The FTC announced that it had reached a $2.5 billion settlement with Amazon regarding allegations that the company signed up millions of Americans for Prime without their consent. Amazon maintains that it never broke the law and that the settlement will allow it to focus on delivering value for consumers.
The FTC sued Amazon in June 2023, alleging a "years-long effort to enroll consumers into its Prime program without their consent while knowingly making it difficult for consumers to cancel their subscriptions," which the agency had begun investigating more than two years prior. The agency accused Amazon of using "manipulative, coercive, or deceptive user-interface designs known as 'dark patterns' to trick consumers into enrolling in automatically-renewing Prime subscriptions."
The dark patterns alleged include offering consumers "numerous opportunities to subscribe to Amazon Prime at $14.99/month" during the checkout process; making "the option to purchase items on Amazon without subscribing to Prime…more difficult…to locate"; and not clearly stating that, in choosing certain checkout options, users "were also agreeing to join Prime." According to the FTC, Amazon's offering of Prime discounts to consumers before allowing them to cancel their subscription altogether was yet another deceptive practice.
The FTC named the Prime cancellation process "The Iliad Flow," but fails to show how a "six-click, fifteen-option cancellation process" is remotely analogous to Odysseus' 10-year voyage back to Ithaca. An Amazon spokesperson tells Reason that "96% [of customers are] able to cancel in 90 seconds or less." Hardly a herculean feat.
Regardless, the FTC charged Amazon and several of the company's top executives with violating the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act and the FTC Act, which prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." The FTC's investigation discovered documents in which Amazon employees referred to the "shady world" of subscription-driving and the "unspoken cancer" of leading customers to unwanted subscriptions. The same Amazon spokesperson tells Reason, "Amazon and our executives have always followed the law," adding that the company works "incredibly hard to make it clear and simple for customers to both sign up or cancel their Prime membership."
Regardless of Amazon's stated efforts to clarify Prime sign-up and cancellation, the company agreed to the costly settlement. Under the agreement, Amazon will pay $1 billion in civil penalties, $1.5 billion in restitution to the 35 million consumers impacted by unwanted enrollment or deferred cancellation, and the inclusion of "a clear and conspicuous button for customers to decline Prime [and] an easy way for consumers to cancel Prime, using the same method that consumers used to sign up."
FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson described the settlement as "a monumental win for the millions of Americans who are tired of deceptive subscriptions that feel impossible to cancel." Ferguson, echoing former FTC Chair Lina Khan, blamed Amazon for using "sophisticated subscription traps" and making it "exceedingly hard for consumers to end their subscription."
Forbidding Amazon's non-Prime checkout button from reading, "No, I don't want free shipping," is an implicit indictment of the intellect of the American public. The FTC, under Khan and Ferguson alike, may believe big firms like Amazon are inherently bad, but the American public regarded the company more favorably than any American institution, except for the military, when the FTC began its investigation in 2021.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
That seems wrong (but not reading the article).
Haven’t they signed up every boomer by now?
>>The agency accused Amazon of using "manipulative, coercive, or deceptive user-interface designs known as 'dark patterns' to trick consumers
doing the same thing with your backwards explanation here. hey Kettle, it's Pot. you're black!
Guess thats one way to call deceptive processes for auto enrollment. The entire issue was Amazon was not alerting users they were being signed up for monthly payments for membership. When first discovered, Amazon changed the process because they were caught. Internal memos show it was intentional.
I know reason isnt big on contracts or laws around them, but this is basically saying businesses can lie to you or deceive you into monetary arrangements. This is worse than what Trump did.
Agreed.
More horseshit. I never had the slightest trouble buying things without Prime. When I did sign up for Prime I knew exactly what I was doing.
Bitch, please. They made it a pain in the ass to buy anything WITHOUT signing up for Prime.
True (and funny). I think the bigger reason this stuck was the enormous gulf in the ease of signing up versus cancellation.
Amazon spokesholes can claim all they want that 96% of people can cancel in 90 seconds or less. Based on what exactly? Is Amazon tracking your brain patterns to determine when you first set out to begin this task? Your chatbot search history for you asking where on the app they buried that option? Your clicking around Prime Video for 10 minutes only to find out you have to log in on a computer to cancel your subscription because reasons?
Nothing about this is libertarian, but I really can't work up any sympathy for Amazon or any other company that does this shit. If Congress wanted people to hate them slightly less, they'd craft a law that requires cancellation in the same number of clicks as sign up. But we can't even get them to stop the fucking time change, so I won't hold my breath.
+1
I have to click one box that says I don't want Prime? Oh, my poor tortured ass!
I've gotten used to HyR's putting a strange slant on things in recent years, but this, this...OK, who's paid off here?
An Amazon spokesperson tells Reason
Well, that settles it.
A Philip-Morris spokesperson tells Reason, "smoking doesn't cause cancer." Jack says, "well, nothing to see here folks."
I'd argue that with less than 10% of smokers getting cancer --- saying it "causes" cancer is a stretch. It is a risk, for sure.
Amazon spokesman vs government spokesman? Easy choice.
This whole thing is essentially "spokespeople for Enron have assured us there practices are of the highest quality". I've cancelled Prime and it is not 90 seconds because nothing is where you'd expect it to be.
Cancelling a gym membership is a nightmare.
My fellow affiliate shareholders and I once cancelled a low-rating late night DNC operative talk show host and it was a nightmare getting that to stick.
lol, no it's not. I once cancelled someone else's gym membership over the phone. Had everything I needed: name, social, DOB, etc. All I had to do was accuse them of violating sacred leftist identity politics and they couldn't end that membership fast enough.
Nice act of fraud.
Forbidding Amazon's non-Prime checkout button from reading, "No, I don't want free shipping," is an implicit indictment of the intellect of the American public.
So are warning labels. And nutrition labels. And "non-GMO" or "organic" labels. Etc.
To be fair, I’m pretty sure Reason opposes all those government labels. But as stupid as all those labels, none of them are DECEPTIVE. As someone who has been deceived by Amazon, and who notices that Google YouTube is constantly inviting me to “reactivate” a subscription I never had, or encouraging me to “log-in with Google” even on websites for which I’ve already established a non-Google account log-in … well. I’m a fairly doctrinaire libertarian, but trying to TRICK people in to buying something is one of the few things I thought all libertarians would agree should be unlawful.
The message of this essay?
“You only signed up and agreed to make monthly payments for service you don’t want because you’re stupid, so tough luck.”
Yes, every last American is dumber than a box of rocks. Thank dog we have the wise and benevolent FTC to look out for us.
So the Democrats are basically saying that it's Amazon's fault that people are too dumb read what they are doing before clicking the button.
No, Nicastro, they're being fined because that make it unnecessarily are to drop Prime - and how easy they make it sign up is evidence of this.
"The FTC named the Prime cancellation process 'The Iliad Flow,' but fails to show how a 'six-click, fifteen-option cancellation process' is remotely analogous to Odysseus' 10-year voyage back to Ithaca."
Anyone else note that the Iliad and the Odyssey are different poems?
And according to other reports, it wasn't the FTC that called this the "Iliad Flow," it was an internal Amazon thing.
"That process, internally dubbed the "Iliad flow" at Amazon, required clicking as many as seven times to actually end a membership, even though Amazon's directions incorrectly implied the process was completed after a couple of steps, the FTC argued.
The Iliad flow "was difficult to get into and difficult to complete," said Reid Nelson, a former Amazon user-experience researcher, during his testimony."
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/amazon-trial-begins-ftc-claims-it-duped-prime-subscribers-2025-09-23/
Look. Reason does t need to go further than accepting facts from the Amazon spokesperson.
I saw Iliad Flow open for Radiohead in the 90's. They were too soft for my tastes, but the female bassist was hot.
The FTC sued Amazon in June 2023, alleging a "years-long effort to enroll consumers into its Prime program without their consent while knowingly making it difficult for consumers to cancel their subscriptions,"
I'd sure like to sue the Government of the United States for a decades-long effort to enroll workers into the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security without their consent, and having their respective employer(s) act as its agent in taking the workers' money, while knowingly making it impossible to cancel the enrollment.
Problem is, any monetary compensation would come out of our own paychecks.
Yes, because self-reporting is obviously entirely honest and transparent with no obfuscation, prevarication, or
avoiding self-incriminationface-saving ever involved.I bet they included access to the data that would allow independent verification of said claim.
I intend to be the last American that has never signed up for Prime.
And Facebook.
Like
The 35-Million customers complaint amounts to $42.86 restitution per disgruntled customer. Needless to say this probably should've been handled by State-lawsuits. However, with that big of a complaint base, obviously there was an issue.
Just how much of those people will ever see their forty bucks? They'll be lucky to get five once the lawyers feed.
What a stupid ill thought out article.
There are reason why I cancelled my Reason subscription.
Reason - hire better writers. This turkey ain't cutting it.
I resisted signing up for prime for a long time. Signing up only when offered a big discount and specifically for prime video. After my trial period ended I canceled. I would do that again a year later.
Now I have prime and I renew it every year. It's some of the easiest money I spend. The convenience of ordering things that cost less than ten bucks and having them ship right away is nice, but I'd keep it for Prime Video alone which I consider to be the best streaming service out there. In particular, I can find more content I want to watch on Prime.
Even so, before I became sold on Prime, Amazon was absolutely doing everything it could to deceive people into signing up for it and making it difficult to cancel. I don't believe for one second that "96% [of customers are] able to cancel in 90 seconds or less." I call bullshit. Twice I had to walk my elderly parents through canceling Prime. They didn't intend to subscribe and couldn't figure out how to unsubscribe. It took me well over ten minutes to dig through the site and figure it out.
Hey, who are you going to believe: an Amazon spokesperson or your lying eyes?
I consider myself a pretty doctrinaire libertarian but this piece is horrible. Google is engaged in the same behavior now. “Re-activate your subscription?” Uhm … I’ve NEVER HAD a subscription, thank you very much!
The piece as much as says “anyone deceived by these practices is stupid.” I didn’t realize that deceiving stupid folks for profit was part of the libertarian ethic. Strike that — deceiving people for profit is NOT part of the libertarian ethic, and Reason should be ashamed for publishing a piece implying that it is.