Amazon Faces FTC in Landmark Trial Over Prime Subscriptions

Amazon is facing the federal government in a Seattle courtroom this week over allegations that it tricked millions of consumers into signing up for its Prime subscription service and made cancellations intentionally difficult. The case, brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), represents one of the most significant federal consumer-protectionconsumer protection lawConsumer protection law is the body of federal and state laws designed to protect people from unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, or abusive practices in the marketplace. These laws regulate areas such as advertising, sales, lending, debt collection, credit reporting, warranties, financial services, and consumer products.Read more → challenges to date against one of the world’s most powerful companies.

Oral arguments began Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington before Judge John Chun. Unusually for a complex antitrust and consumer law dispute, a jury will determine whether Amazon’s conduct violated federal law. The trial is expected to last nearly a month.

The FTC accuses Amazon of using so-called “dark patterns” in its design choices, which regulators describe as manipulative, to steer users toward enrolling in Prime, which costs $139 annually or $14.99 monthly. One example cited in court filings shows a large yellow button advertising “Get FREE Two-Day Shipping,” which initiated enrollment, while the option to avoid Prime was tucked into a smaller hyperlink. Regulators also allege that cancelling Prime required navigating a “four-page, six-click, fifteen-option” process that Amazon employees internally dubbed the “Iliad Flow,” likening it to Homer’s lengthy tale of the Trojan War.

“Millions of consumers accidentally enrolled in Prime without knowledge or consent,” the FTC wrote in its trial brief, accusing Amazon of refusing to resolve what some of its employees described internally as an “unspoken cancer” to avoid losing subscribers.

Amazon denies wrongdoing. The company argues its disclosures are as clear, or clearer, than other subscription services and that any consumer confusion represents an unavoidable “small percentage” of mistakes given Prime’s scale. Prime, last publicly reported to have more than 200 million members worldwide in 2021, is central to Amazon’s business model, offering shipping perks, streaming services, and discounts to subscribers.

The legal fight also involves three Amazon executives, who are named as defendants alongside the company. Amazon has argued that the FTC is stretching consumer protection law by attempting to apply the undefined concept of “dark patterns” to ordinary business practices. “Evidence that a small percentage of customers misunderstood Prime enrollment or cancellation does not prove that Amazon violated the law,” the company wrote in its trial brief.

The term “dark patterns” refers to online design techniques that nudge users into actions they might not otherwise take, such as signing up for services, sharing personal data, or agreeing to recurring payments. These techniques can include misleading buttons, buried opt-out links, confusing language, or lengthy cancellation processes. Regulators worldwide have begun to scrutinize such practices as deceptive, arguing they strip consumers of meaningful choice.

While U.S. law does not explicitly define dark patterns, the FTC relies on broad statutory authority to police “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” Legal experts note that this flexibility is deliberate, allowing regulators to adapt consumer protection standards to new technologies and business models. Courts are now being asked to decide whether Amazon’s Prime enrollment and cancellation process crossed that line.

Judge Chun has already taken issue with Amazon’s handling of the case. In July, he admonished company lawyers for withholding nearly 70,000 documents until the eve of discovery deadlines, calling the move “tantamount to bad faith.” He has denied Amazon’s attempts to dismiss the lawsuit and has sided with the FTC in several pre-trial disputes.

The outcome of this trial could have significant implications for subscription-based businesses across industries. If the jury sides with the FTC, companies may face increased pressure to simplify enrollment and cancellation processes to avoid accusations of deception.

The case also sets the stage for a separate antitrust lawsuit against Amazon scheduled for trial in early 2027, also before Judge Chun. In that case, regulators accuse Amazon of operating as a monopoly that stifles competition across e-commerce markets. Amazon has rejected those allegations, calling them “wrong on the facts and on the law.”

While U.S. courts are only beginning to weigh in on dark patterns, the European Union has already taken more decisive steps. Under the EU’s Digital Services Act, which took effect in 2023, online platforms are explicitly prohibited from using dark patterns that deceive or manipulate users. The law requires companies to make cancellation as simple as sign-up and to ensure disclosures are clear and straightforward. Regulators in Europe have signaled they will aggressively enforce these standards against major tech companies, including Amazon.

At the heart of the Seattle trial is a fundamental consumer rights question: when does aggressive marketing become illegal deception? The jury’s decision may help shape how U.S. law approaches online design practices that have become routine in the digital economy—potentially bringing American standards closer to those already in place overseas.