The article mentions the ads are expected to bring in $3 billion annually.
Even if the lawsuit is successful, I suspect it will cost Amazon much less than what they are projecting to make.
Even if the lawsuit is successful, I suspect it will cost Amazon much less than what they are projecting to make.
Furthermore, Amazon has already written this argument with its actions: They didn't only introduce ads, they also introduced a higher-priced ad-free tier. By the Amazon's very action - which happens to be the context for this entire argument - the ability to watch without ads has a dollar value. That means the inability to watch without ads must have the inverse value, i.e. equivalent harm.
What's the point then? It appears only lawyers stand to gain from this, as usual.
As soon as fines and legal infractions are viewed merely as the 'cost of doing business', enforcing regulations becomes futile. At that point, might as well transition to a 'free for all' market rather than maintain a faux judicial system.
"lawyers stand to gain from this"
Not living in a world where bait and switch / illegal business practices are 10x as common is the benefit of class action lawsuits not the occasional random check for $1.37 or worse a coupon etc. Long term they could have rolled out adds as people resubscribe and there’s no lawsuit, and next time they may consider doing so.