FTC Secures Key Pretrial Win In Amazon Prime Dark Patterns Lawsuit Summary Judgment Ruling
UPDATE 9-25-25
Amazon will pay $2.5 Billion to settle FTC allegations that it duped users into paying for Prime memberships.
Liz Morton
The FTC won a partial summary judgment victory in its case against Amazon this week with US District Judge John Chun ruling the company broke consumer protection law by revealing Prime’s terms only after collecting customers’ payment information.
The decision comes less than a week before the suit, filed in 2023, alleging the company has duped millions of consumers into unknowingly enrolling in Amazon Prime using dark pattern design practices is finally set to go to trial.
Liz Morton
The FTC alleges that Amazon's Prime subscription and cancellation practices are in violation of the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), which requires that the material terms of a transaction be disclosed clearly and conspicuously before billing information is collected.
Amazon argued that it obtains consent to use a customer’s billing information at the same time it discloses Prime’s terms, but Chun ruled that “no reasonable jury could find in favor of Amazon” when presented with evidence showing the order in which billing information is collected in the checkout flow.
The FTC also contends that Defendants violate ROSCA because Amazon collects consumers’ billing information before disclosing the material terms of Prime.
According to the FTC, Amazon uses customers’ stored information to charge them when they later enroll, whether the enrollment is consensual or not, in Prime. And the FTC adds that in some cases Defendants do not collect or confirm a consumer’s billing information at all before enrolling them in Prime.
Defendants contend that Amazon complies with ROSCA’s disclosure requirements because the website discloses Prime’s terms before obtaining a customer’s consent to use their billing information.
They say that in each of the flows, Amazon discloses Prime’s terms and then obtains consent to use the customer’s billing information. Defendants’ final argument is that this is a disputed question because Amazon’s material terms are “ubiquitous” on its website and in its advertisements.
The evidence presented by the FTC establishes that it is entitled to summary judgment on this issue. The FTC highlights images that show Amazon collects a customer’s billing information before the material terms of Prime are disclosed to a customer...
...This practice violates the plain text of ROSCA. 15 U.S.C. § 8403(1). No reasonable jury could find in favor of Amazon when provided with this evidence.
“Prime is subject to ROSCA because it is a service ‘sold in a transaction effected on the Internet through a negative option feature,’” Chun further explained. “Defendants’ artful application of contract law does not allow them to avoid this straightforward understanding of ROSCA.”
The FTC also took the rare step of naming specific Amazon executives (Neil Lindsay, Russell Grandinetti, and Jamil Ghani) who had the authority to control Prime enrollment and cancellation flows in this lawsuit and Chun's ruling this week will allow two of those execs to be held personally liable for any violations which are proven at trial.
The FTC cites extensive evidence that shows Ghani and Lindsay had authority to control Prime’s enrollment and cancellation flows. Amazon told the FTC that Ghani and Lindsay were two of the individuals “most responsible for any decisions” in “enrollment and cancellation in the Prime program.”
The FTC also presented evidence showing Amazon identified Lindsay as “the Senior Vice President responsible for Prime and a member of Amazon’s S-Team” and Ghani as “the Vice President responsible for Prime.”
Ghani and Lindsay “had the most consistent management authority over the policies, practices, and procedures” of the “Enrollment and Unsubscribe process for Amazon Prime.” These individuals also “have or had primary oversight and leadership over the Prime program.”
This evidence establishes that Ghani and Lindsay had authority to control Amazon’s Prime enrollment and cancellation practices. This high degree of involvement also supports the FTC’s argument that these Defendants had actual knowledge of, or were recklessly indifferent to, the alleged issues with Amazon’s flows...
...Thus, to the extent that the FTC establishes Amazon is liable for violations of the FTC Act and ROSCA, the Court grants the FTC’s motion for summary judgment on this issue, and liability starts for Lindsay in 2017 and Ghani in October 2019.
The third executive, Russell Grandinetti, is still a named defendant in this suit but the Judge denied both sides' requests for summary judgment, choosing to leave the question of his personal liability up to a jury.
Evidence submitted by the FTC likewise shows that Grandinetti had the authority to control the Prime enrollment and cancellation flows. For one thing, Grandinetti testified that he would expect to be consulted on major changes to the Prime enrollment flow.
And since March 2018, Grandinetti has been an S-Team member “with responsibility for Prime.” Grandinetti was a “required” in-person attendee at a March 2019 meeting to discuss “Prime signup frustration”—specifically that “prime sign-ups are not always transparent; customers sign up without knowing they did.”
As part of Amazon’s corporate practice, all attendees—including Grandinetti—would have been required to read the document that discussed these Prime sign-up frustrations. After this meeting, Grandinetti provided “guidance” to the Prime and Shopping Design Teams on these frustrations.
And Amazon employees understood that they were required to follow his “guidance” on Prime at this time.Consistent with his Prime responsibilities, Grandinetti also received a memorandum from Amazon’s “Benchmarking” organization in November 2019 that disclosed Prime customers “who attempted to cancel post-signup struggled with the process (how, where, and when).”
A reasonable jury could find against Grandinetti and in favor of the FTC on his individual liability based on this evidence.
But here, Defendants introduce sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact. The Prime organization did not directly report to Grandinetti until 2021.
At Grandinetti’s deposition, the FTC did not ask him about anything that would have shown he was involved in decisions related to the cancellation flow. And about 30,000 people worldwide fall under the umbrella of his role, “[p]erhaps more.” This evidence suggest that Grandinetti had less involvement in the operation of the Prime organization, as compared to Ghani and Lindsay.
Based on this evidence, a reasonable jury could find against the FTC and find that Grandinetti is not personally liable for Amazon’s violations of the FTC Act and ROSCA. So the Court denies both sides’ motions for summary judgment on this issue.
Chun also declined to grant summary judgment on the remainder of the FTC’s claims, finding in particular that there was competing evidence as to the simplicity of Amazon’s cancellation process and what qualifies as “simple” under the act.
Amazon expressed confidence the company will prevail at trial, according to Courthouse News Service, with a spokesperson saying in a statement:
“The bottom line is that neither Amazon nor the individual defendants did anything wrong — we remain confident that the facts will show these executives acted properly and we always put customers first.”
The case is Federal Trade Commission v. Amazon.com Inc. Washington Western District Court Case # 2:23-cv-00932 with trial set for September 22, 2025.
Full summary judgment ruling:
