U.S. District Judge Tana Lin dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit against Amazon, which accused the e-commerce giant of misleading customers about the benefits of its Prime subscription service, specifically regarding a $9.95 delivery fee for Whole Foods purchases. The ruling, delivered in Seattle federal court on Thursday, found that the plaintiff’s claim under Washington state consumer protection law was inadequately supported.

The lawsuit, filed in 2022, alleged that Amazon's marketing practices regarding free delivery for Prime members at Whole Foods were "false, misleading, and likely to deceive a reasonable consumer." Attorneys representing the plaintiffs estimated that the class could include hundreds of thousands of Prime members who subscribed to the service expecting free Whole Foods delivery.

Amazon, which acquired Whole Foods in 2017 for $13.7 billion, initially advertised “free delivery” for Prime members on some Whole Foods orders. However, in 2021, the company began charging a “service fee” for these deliveries.

Judge Lin's dismissal centered on the plaintiff's inability to demonstrate reliance on specific Amazon advertisements that promised “free delivery” from Whole Foods. Furthermore, Lin noted that the delivery service fee was clearly displayed on two webpages during the checkout process, undermining claims of deceptive practices.

Despite dismissing the current complaint, Lin has left the door open for the plaintiff to file an amended lawsuit. The amended complaint could focus on the assertion that consumers might have believed free delivery from Whole Foods was guaranteed for the entire duration of their Prime membership.

Amazon argued that the benefits of Prime membership, including free delivery, are subject to change and that the company has "sole discretion" to add or remove such perks. The company denied violating Washington state's consumer protection law, which prohibits deceptive advertising and other unfair practices.

Washington State's Consumer Protection Act (CPA) is designed to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive business practices. The CPA prohibits practices that are misleading, deceptive, or unfair to consumers and provides mechanisms for consumers to seek recourse against businesses that violate these provisions.

In the class action lawsuit filed against Amazon, the plaintiffs alleged that the company violated the Washington State Consumer Protection Act by misleading consumers about the benefits of its Prime subscription service, specifically regarding "free delivery" from Whole Foods.

The plaintiffs accused Amazon of false advertising by claiming that the company promoted "free delivery" from Whole Foods as a benefit of Prime membership, but later introduced a $9.95 delivery fee. This, they argued, was misleading. They subscribed to Prime under the impression that this benefit would be consistently available throughout their membership duration.

In terms of hidden fees, the plaintiffs argued that by implementing a delivery fee after initially advertising free delivery, Amazon engaged in an unfair practice. They contended that the fee was effectively concealed, as it was introduced only after they had committed to the Prime membership based on the advertised benefits.

Regarding deception in the checkout process, the plaintiffs acknowledged that the delivery fee was displayed during checkout but argued this was insufficient to address the misleading nature of the original advertisement. They maintained that consumers were deceived into believing that the delivery would remain free as part of their Prime membership, contrary to what was later imposed.

In dismissing the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Tana Lin noted that the plaintiff had not adequately demonstrated which specific Amazon advertisements led her to believe that there would be "free delivery" from Whole Foods. The judge also highlighted that the service fee was clearly shown during the checkout process, which undermined the claims of deceptive practices.

However, Judge Lin allowed for the possibility of an amended lawsuit, suggesting that if the plaintiffs can provide clearer evidence of misleading advertisements or demonstrate that consumers reasonably expected free delivery throughout their Prime membership, the case could proceed under the Washington State Consumer Protection Act.

Amazon is currently defending itself against several lawsuits in both state and federal courts, brought by consumers, businesses, and government agencies. These cases challenge various aspects of Amazon's business practices. Notably, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) accused Amazon last year of leveraging unlawful monopoly power to stifle competition and inflate prices. Additionally, another consumer lawsuit alleges that Amazon has driven up the prices of eBooks. Amazon has consistently denied any wrongdoing in these cases.

The dismissal of this class action lawsuit marks a temporary reprieve for Amazon, but the possibility of an amended lawsuit means the issue is far from resolved. Should the plaintiff successfully amend their complaint to address the court’s concerns, Amazon may once again find itself defending its Prime subscription service practices.