亚马逊因在Prime Video引入广告而面临诉讼。全球正密切关注此事。
Amazon is being taken to court for introducing ads to P…
A legal expert explains the allegations against Amazon Australia and US – and why the new case is already making global headlines.
一位法律专家解释了针对亚马逊澳大利亚和美国的指控，以及为何这一新案已引发全球关注。
When Amazon started showing ads to its Prime Video subscribers, annoyed TV viewers complained to the consumer watchdog. Now the case is headed for the Federal Court – and already attracting international interest.
当亚马逊开始向其Prime Video订阅用户展示广告后，不满的电视观众向消费者监管机构投诉。现在此案已提交联邦法院——并已引起国际关注。
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has accused Amazon Australia of breaching Australian consumer law by “making negative changes” to contract terms for Prime subscriptions, which then affected more than 850,000 people when Amazon introduced advertising to Prime Video.
澳大利亚竞争与消费者委员会（ACCC）指控亚马逊澳大利亚违反了澳大利亚消费者法，声称亚马逊通过对Prime订阅合同条款“进行负面更改”，进而影响了超过85万人，尤其是在亚马逊向Prime Video引入广告后。
Amazon Prime Video is Australia’s second most popular streaming service, only behind Netflix.
亚马逊Prime Video是澳大利亚第二受欢迎的流媒体服务，仅次于Netflix。
The ACCC says Amazon US was also “knowingly concerned” in what happened in Australia.
ACCC表示，美国亚马逊也对发生在澳大利亚的事情“知情且心知肚明”。
This court case is part of a campaign by the ACCC to enforce the protections in the Australian Consumer Law against big companies – such as Amazon, Coles and Woolworths – involving individually small, but widespread, losses to consumers. Just last month, the ACCC launched a separate court case against Amazon for allegedly unsafe children’s backpacks.
此项诉讼是ACCC为执行《澳大利亚消费者法》中保护措施的一项运动，旨在对抗大型公司——例如亚马逊、Coles和Woolworths——这些损失虽然个体上很小，但却广泛存在于消费者群体中。就在上个月，ACCC还针对亚马逊提起了另一宗单独的诉讼，指控其儿童背包涉嫌不安全。
The ACCC is increasingly testing the boundaries of what it can enforce under Australian Consumer Law. But what exactly does that law say on this issue – and what defence might Amazon have?
ACCC正越来越多地测试《澳大利亚消费者法》规定的执行边界。但该法律在这方面到底说了什么——而亚马逊又可能提出哪些辩护？
What’s the ACCC alleging?
ACCC指控的是什么？
The ACCC alleges that between November 2023 and August 2025, Amazon Australia’s Prime contracts contained terms allowing Amazon to make changes to the service and conditions of supply, providing consumers were notified of any adverse changes.
ACCC指控，在2023年11月至2025年8月期间，亚马逊澳大利亚的Prime合同包含条款，允许亚马逊更改服务和供货条件，前提是向消费者通知任何不利变化。
The ACCC alleges Amazon relied on these legal terms to:
ACCC指控亚马逊利用这些法律条款：
introduce ads to Prime Video in July 2024
于2024年7月向Prime Video引入广告
then charge subscribers A$2.99 per month to remain ad free, in addition to their upfront monthly or yearly fees.
然后向订阅用户收取每月2.99澳元的费用，以保持无广告状态，这笔费用是除了他们预付的月费或年费之外的。
At the time, more than 850,000 Prime subscribers had paid an annual fee for their subscription, which included access to Prime Video.
当时，超过85万名Prime订阅用户已支付了包含Prime Video访问权的年费。
So the ACCC argues those subscribers were then left with “a degraded Prime Video service for the balance of their subscription”.
因此，ACCC认为这些订阅用户在剩余的订阅期内只能使用“降级的Prime Video服务”。
It also alleges consumers who chose to cancel were not offered “a pro rata refund or other meaningful redress”, which it argues made the terms of the Amazon contract unfair.
它还指控，选择取消订阅的消费者没有获得“按比例退款或其他有意义的补救措施”，而ACCC认为这使得亚马逊合同的条款不公平。
Significantly, the ACCC also claims Amazon US was involved: that it made the decision to introduce advertising to Prime Video globally, then helped implement that decision in Australia.
值得注意的是，ACCC还声称亚马逊美国参与了此事：即它做出了在全球范围内向Prime Video引入广告的决定，然后帮助澳大利亚实施了这一决定。
What Amazon has said and potential penalties
亚马逊的表态和潜在罚款
An Amazon Australia spokesman said in a statement the company was reviewing the ACCC’s case:
一位亚马逊澳大利亚发言人在声明中表示，该公司正在审查ACCC的案件：
We have cooperated with the ACCC throughout its investigation and remain focused on providing the best experience for our Australian customers.
我们一直配合ACCC进行调查，并继续致力于为澳大利亚客户提供最佳体验。
The ACCC is seeking penalties against both Amazon Australia and Amazon US, as well as consumer redress and costs. In this case, the maximum financial penalty would be whichever is highest out of:
ACCC正在寻求对亚马逊澳大利亚和亚马逊美国处以罚款，以及要求消费者赔偿和成本。在这种情况下，最高金额的罚款将是以下三项中最高的：
A$50 million
澳元5000万
three times the value of the benefit obtained from the conduct, or
行为所获利益价值的三倍，或
30% of adjusted turnover during the breach period.
违规期间调整后的营业额的30%。
Why this case is legally tricky
本案在法律上为何棘手
I have argued for years that “unilateral variation clauses” – giving the supplier an unfettered discretion to change the terms of service in a contract – are inherently unfair.
我多年来一直主张，“单方面修改条款”——赋予供应商不受限制的权力随时更改合同服务条款——本质上是不公平的。
The whole purpose of entering into a contract is to lock in a promise to supply goods or services on agreed terms.
签订合同的全部目的是为了锁定在约定条款下供应商品或服务的承诺。
If the supplier – in this case Amazon – can change the terms at any time, in any way it likes, it undermines the whole point of making a contract.
如果供应商——在本案中是亚马逊——可以随时随地更改条款，那就破坏了签订合同的全部意义。
That’s been my view. But the ACCC’s official advice to business on contracts has taken a different position – which might give Amazon a defence.
这是我的观点。但ACCC关于合同的官方商业建议采取了不同的立场——这可能会为亚马逊提供辩护依据。
Amazon appears to have followed official guidance
亚马逊似乎遵循了官方指导方针
The ACCC’s own website currently suggests that a fair contract should allow consumers to terminate without a “penalty” if they don’t like a “unilateral change” from the supplier. This guidance does not explicitly mention needing to offer pro rata refunds for people cancelling contracts.
ACCC自己的网站目前建议，公平的合同应允许消费者在不满意供应商“单方面更改”的情况下终止合同，且无需支付“罚金”。该指导方针并未明确提及需要为取消合同的人提供按比例退款。
This could be part of Amazon’s defence in the Federal Court.
这可能是亚马逊在联邦法院的辩护部分。
Amazon could argue its contract terms at the time were technically consistent with the ACCC’s own guidance: customers were given notice of adverse changes and could terminate at any time in response.
亚马逊可能会辩称，其当时的合同条款在技术上与ACCC自身的指导方针一致：客户收到了不利变更的通知，并可以随时做出回应终止合同。
The question for the Federal Court to decide will be whether that was enough – or whether pro rata refunds for Prime Video viewers wanting to cancel their subscription were essential to make the contract terms “fair” under consumer law.
联邦法院需要裁定的问题是，这是否足够——或者对于想要取消订阅的Prime Video用户而言，按比例退款是否对使合同条款符合消费者法规定的“公平性”至关重要。
Interestingly, I checked my Amazon Prime Video subscription and found a pro rata refund is now offered if I terminate following an adverse change of terms. The ACCC has also pointed out that change in its case filing against Amazon.
有趣的是，我查看了我的亚马逊Prime Video订阅，发现如果我在合同条款发生不利变更后终止服务，现在可以获得按比例退款。ACCC在其针对亚马逊的案件文件中也指出了这一变化。
This court case will not just be closely watched here in Australia. With Amazon US also involved, within hours of the ACCC’s announcement it had already begun to make international headlines.
这起法律案件不仅会在澳大利亚引起关注。由于亚马逊美国（Amazon US）也参与其中，在ACCC宣布后的数小时内，它就已经开始登上国际头条新闻了。
The case will also be followed particularly closely in other countries with similar laws to Australia’s against unfair contract terms, such as the United Kingdom and the European Union.
在其他具有与澳大利亚类似的不公平合同条款法律的国家，例如英国和欧盟，该案件也将受到特别关注。
Jeannie Marie Paterson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Jeannie Marie Paterson接受澳大利亚研究理事会的资助。
