The ACCC alleges Amazon buried unfair terms in Prime contracts, then used them to add ads to Prime Video for more than a million subscribers without offering refunds.
The complaint Australia’s consumer regulator filed against Amazon this week turns on a small print clause and a large grievance. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission alleges that Amazon buried unfair terms in its Prime subscription contracts and then used those terms to quietly introduce advertising to Prime Video, leaving subscribers who had paid for an ad-free service with no way to get their money back.
The case was filed on 29 June in the Victorian District Registry of the Federal Court. At its centre is a sequence familiar to anyone who has watched the streaming industry pivot toward advertising.
Before July 2024, Prime Video in Australia was almost entirely ad-free. Then Amazon introduced ads, and told subscribers who wanted to keep watching without interruption that they would need to pay an additional A$2.99 a month for the privilege they had assumed they already had.
The 💜 of EU tech
The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!
The ACCC’s argument is not that Amazon added ads, which streaming services are free to do, but how it added them. The regulator alleges that between November 2023 and August 2025, Amazon Australia used unfair contract terms to impose negative changes on more than one million annual subscribers without offering compensation.
The unfairness, in the ACCC’s telling, lies in the contract that let Amazon degrade a paid service mid-term and charge to restore it.
The distinction matters legally. Australian consumer law contains a specific regime against unfair contract terms, and the regulator has been increasingly willing to test it against the standard-form agreements that govern digital subscriptions.
A clause permitting a company to materially change what it sells, after the customer has paid for a year, is precisely the kind of term that regime was written to scrutinise. Recent amendments to that law also made unfair contract terms subject to civil penalties rather than mere unenforceability, which raises the financial stakes for a company found to have relied on one at scale.
The stakes for affected customers are concrete. If the court sides with the ACCC, more than a million Australians could be entitled to some form of compensation for the roughly year-and-a-half period during which they were shown ads they had not agreed to. The case is at an early stage, with no hearing date set, so any remedy is some distance off.
The move to advertising was not unique to Australia, either; Amazon introduced ads to Prime Video across multiple markets in 2024 as part of a global shift toward advertising revenue in streaming, which means the legal theory the ACCC is testing could prove relevant well beyond the Federal Court.
The action also fits a pattern of Australian regulators taking an unusually assertive line with the largest technology platforms. The country has moved harder than most on digital enforcement, from its world-first ban on under-16s using social media, where the regulator has accused major platforms of failing to comply, to a push to double Big Tech fines and expand its watchdog’s powers.
The Prime Video suit is consumer protection rather than child safety, but it draws on the same institutional appetite for confrontation.
It is not Amazon’s only regulatory headache over how it treats subscribers. The company has faced scrutiny in multiple jurisdictions over Prime sign-up and cancellation practices, and separately agreed to pay $2.25 million in the United States to settle claims it failed to give identity-theft victims required records. The Prime Video case adds a streaming dimension to a company whose subscription business is under examination on several fronts at once.
Amazon has not detailed its defence, and the company will have the opportunity to respond as the matter proceeds through the Federal Court. For now the allegation stands on its own: that the ad-free streaming a million Australians thought they had bought was, by the terms they had agreed to without quite realising it, never guaranteed at all.
