Here's what you paid for: https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=20191078 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...,

Here's what you paid for: https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=20191078 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=..., https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201118050 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=.... It includes clauses like this: > Prime shipping benefits depend upon inventory availability, order deadlines, and in some cases the shipping address. There's no commitment to provide Prime on 100.0% of eligible orders, or even 1% of them. It's a best-effort service. It's always been a best-effort service. Regarding legality, this would be a civil issue (questions of contract law between counterparties), not a criminal one (enforcement of a jurisdiction's written laws). However, in this case Amazon didn't claim "We absolutely guarantee you'll receive all <X> packages within <Y> days" or anything like that, so it's not even a civil issue. Of course, you might reasonably prefer that they provide a credit as a nice thing to do, since they're not providing the service you hoped to receive and that you probably have received in the past. They declined to do that. If you feel that's inadequate, you should cancel and/or stop purchasing from them.