【速報】Amazonプライムビデオ、広告導入訴訟で敗訴！？気になる判決内容を徹底解説！
プライムビデオに広告導入は「実質値上げ」？訴訟の行方は…
Amazonプライムビデオの広告導入をめぐり、アメリカで集団訴訟が起きていたのをご存知ですか？
「広告なしで見るには追加料金が必要になるのは実質的な値上げだ！」
という原告側の主張に対し、裁判所の判断が下されました。
裁判所の判断：広告導入は「契約内容の変更」
結論から言うと、裁判所はAmazon側の主張を認め、訴訟を棄却しました。
裁判所は、広告導入は「価格の値上げ」ではなく、Amazonプライムの「契約内容の変更」にあたると判断したのです。
つまり、プライム会員は契約時にAmazonがサービス内容を変更する可能性があることに同意している、という解釈ですね。
広告導入は「財布への影響はあったが…」
裁判所も、広告導入によって「広告なしで視聴したいプライム会員の財布に影響があった」ことは認めています。
しかし、
- 契約書でサービスの変更が明示的に認められている
- 広告なしオプションを選択しない限り、料金は変わらない
という点を重視し、「価格の値上げ」とは見なさないという判断に至りました。
他の動画配信サービスでも同様の動きが？
今回のAmazonプライムビデオの訴訟だけでなく、動画配信サービスをめぐる問題は他にもあります。
- Peacock：自動更新ポリシーをめぐる訴訟で和解
- FTC（連邦取引委員会）：動画配信サービスの解約手続き簡略化を推進
動画配信サービスの利用者が増加するにつれて、サービスの利用規約や料金体系などが問題視されるケースが増えているようです。
Netflixとの違いは？Amazonの戦略とは
ちなみに、Netflixは広告付きの低価格プランを導入しつつ、広告なしプランも維持しています。
Netflixの共同CEOは、
「広告をデフォルトにするのは、会員を怒らせる可能性がある」
とコメントしており、Amazonとは異なる戦略をとっています。
Amazonの今回の判決を受け、今後動画配信サービスの料金体系や広告戦略がどのように変化していくのか、注目していきましょう！
A federal judge in Washington state has dismissed a class-action lawsuit against Amazon for putting ads on Prime Video.
In a ruling issued Wednesday (read it HERE), U.S. District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein rejected the claim that Amazon’s decision to start running ads in 2024 effectively represented a price increase for Prime members. Only by paying an additional $2.99 per month (on top of the annual $139 fee for Prime) could members opt out of advertising on film and TV titles, which the plaintiffs said forced them to pay more in order to continue the same video experience.
The addition of ads “constituted a change in subscription benefits as opposed to a price increase,” Rothstein countered. All subscribers agree to a contract when they join Prime, she said, giving Amazon the ability to alter the nature of the services provided under the contract.
“It is true that Amazon’s introduction of commercials to its streaming service, for those Prime members who chose to pay more to keep their streaming ad-free, ultimately had an effect on those subscribers’ wallets tantamount to a ‘price increase,’” she added. “The Court, however, is compelled to maintain the distinction between a benefit removal and a price increase for several reasons. First, this distinction is repeatedly reinforced in the contracts themselves. Benefit modifications and removals are expressly authorized throughout both contracts; price increases are circumscribed and allowed only according to certain conditions. The expressly distinct treatment of these things makes little sense if one could turn a benefit removal into a price increase by simply recharacterizing it as such.”
Furthermore, the addition of ads did not result in “any out-of-pocket price increase whatsoever,” the judge added. “The subscription fee for subscribers who took no action did not change at all. The only subscribers who experienced any increase in price were those who voluntarily chose to incur one by affirmatively opting in to the $2.99-a-month charge to avoid ads.”
The case is one of several to arise of late as streaming continues to gain prominence as a media delivery vehicle. Earlier this week, Los Angeles County announced it had reached a settlement with Peacock, with the NBCUniversal streaming service agreeing to pay $3.6 million to resolve complaints from customers about its auto-renewal policy. In a similar vein, the Federal Trade Commission has been pursuing “click to cancel” regulations that would require digital and streaming outlets to simplify the process of discontinuing subscriptions.
Amazon’s strategy for advertising on Prime Video differs markedly from that of Netflix, which phased in a lower-priced subscription tier with ads while maintaining ad-free plans. Netflix Co-CEO Greg Peters said in 2024 that the streaming giant had considered making advertising the default option. “But given our long history of not having ads, we thought it was better for members, rather than forcing them into a change and get them mad.”
コメント