Customer Refunds, Not a Reason to Dismiss Amazon Prime Class Action

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A class action lawsuit filed against Amazon.com Inc. alleging deceptive practices involving its Prime membership program should not be dismissed even if customers received a refund, two of its customers say.

One of the Plaintiffs, Dr. A. Cemal Ekin, says that he was not aware that he received a refund for his Prime membership until Amazon filed its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but, even if he did, he was still injured because he was overcharged for the products he purchased, he explains in his response to Amazon’s motion to dismiss the Prime lawsuit.

Marcia Burke, the other plaintiff in the Amazon Prime class action lawsuit, says she never received a refund for her second Prime membership and that it is unclear that she did for the first, as Amazon claimed, and even if she did not make purchases that were part of the Fulfillment by Amazon program, the internet retailer still violated breach of contract laws.

The Amazon Prime class action lawsuit filed in February alleges that Amazon encouraged third-party vendors through its Fulfillment by Amazon program to inflate their prices on Prime-eligible products so they wouldn’t lose money on the free two-day shipping, which is promised on several Amazon products in exchange for an annual $79 Prime membership fee.

Amazon filed a motion to have the class action lawsuit dismissed in July. 

The internet giant argued that Ekin lacked standing to bring the Amazon class action lawsuit because he cancelled his Prime membership and received a full refund for the membership.

Amazon also argued that Ekin did receive the free two-day shipping that he was promised as part of the terms of the membership.

In addition, Amazon said that Burke purchased two books and a game, which all cost less than the price of shipping for those items, and of the purchases Ekin made that were Prime-eligible, none of them were part of the Fulfillment by Amazon program.

Ekin responded saying that he is still owed damages because Amazon violated Washington state law.

He says that under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, “a plaintiff suffers an injury even when a defendant provides a full refund . . . . The mere fact that the defendant held the plaintiff’s money, even for as short as two weeks, is a sufficient injury under the statute.”

In addition, “as a result of Amazon’s unfair or deceptive conduct falsely representing ‘free’ shipping in exchange for a fee, Amazon had control of plaintiffs’ money for many months, and Dr. Ekin was injured as defined by Washington’s CPA even in the year he received a refund.”

As for Burke, she claims she was signed up for an “accidental” membership in February 2007 and “was later charged the $79 fee.” She cancelled her Prime membership in April 2008, but that “it is unclear whether she received a refund,” because “the information provided by Amazon is conflicting.”

She became a Prime member again in 2010 to 2011, and says that “she has never received a refund” for that membership fee.

They also explain that even though Ekin did not purchased any products that were part of the Fulfillment by Amazon program, that “breach of contract damages are not limited to consequential damages, as Amazon implies . . . . He paid for a core benefit he did not receive, and he is entitled to get his membership fee back.”

The plaintiffs are represented by Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore and Scott & Scott LLP.

Amazon is represented by James C. Grant, Ambika K. Doran and Rebecca Francis of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

The Amazon Prime Class Action Lawsuit is Ekin v. Amazon Services LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00244, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.