Amazon Calls for Arbitration in Hidden Charges Class Action Lawsuit

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.

On Sept. 29, Amazon.com Inc. submitted a motion to dismiss a hidden charges class action lawsuit filed against them by a consumer and has additionally argued that per the terms and conditions of the Amazon Prime user agreement, all potential Class Members are compelled to enter into arbitration over the hidden costs allegations.

In Amazon’s pending motion to dismiss the Amazon Prime class action lawsuit and its motion to compel arbitration, the two lead plaintiffs and all potential Class Members have agreed to Amazon’s conditions of use (COU), which is presented before every purchase and contains a broad provision for arbitration.

Plaintiffs Dr. Cemal Ekin and Marcia Burke “contend the arbitration agreement is ‘void and unconscionable’ because the Amazon Prime Terms and Conditions (‘Prime Ts & Cs’) and COUs contain provisions allowing Amazon to make changes to those agreements.” Ekin and Burke support this argument by citing a similar case against Zappos.com, an Amazon subsidiary, in which the arbitration claims were stuck down by the court.

However, in their motion to dismiss the Amazon Prime hidden charges class action lawsuit, Amazon fired back: “Amazon did not change either agreement to impose arbitration on Plaintiffs or to change the terms of arbitration. Rather, Plaintiffs agreed to arbitration each time they accepted the COUs anew—more than 300 times in all. Plaintiffs’ arguments are irrelevant for this reason, and the cases they rely upon are inapposite.”

Based on the Amazon Prime terms and conditions and COUs, the online retail giant argues the broad arbitration clause applies to all past, present, and future disputes by the plaintiffs and Class Members. Amazon further argued that the Washington federal courts and the 9th Circuit have never struck down an arbitration clause based solely on the changeability of the contract and to unenforced said clause would invalidate a number of arbitration agreements within the United States.

Earlier this year in February, Ekin and Burke filed theAmazon Prime hidden charges class action lawsuit alleging Amazon pushed their vendors to raise product prices roughly by the amount a customer would have been charged for the shipping without a Prime account. Thus, Amazon Prime members who pay the $79 annual fee for free two-day shipping have been allegedly been tricked into paying hidden charges, according to Ekin and Burke’s class action lawsuit.

In this Amazon Prime hidden charges class action lawsuit, Ekin and Burke seek to represent themselves and a Class of Amazon Prime members who used the website’s services between 2007 through 2011 and paid the annual membership fee. It is estimated that the potential number of Class Members could be well over 1 million Amazon consumers.

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

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