5 ms·

The article mentions the ads are expected to bring in $3 billion annually. Even if the lawsuit is successful, I suspect it will cost Amazon much less than what

The article mentions the ads are expected to bring in $3 billion annually. Even if the lawsuit is successful, I suspect it will cost Amazon much less than what they are projecting to make.

diggan 3y ago
> Even if the lawsuit is successful, I suspect it will cost Amazon much less than what they are projecting to make. What's the point then? It appears only lawyers stand to gain from this, as usual. As soon as fines and legal infractions are viewed merely as the 'cost of doing business', enforcing regulations becomes futile. At that point, might as well transition to a 'free for all' market rather than maintain a faux judicial system.
- voakbasda 3y ago
  The point is that fines and legal infractions are the cost of doing business. The government consistently fails to enforce laws in a meaningful way. We are indeed in the midst of a free for all, where "all" here refers to established interests wholly capable of buying legislation and courts.
- alwaysrunning 3y ago
  > What's the point then? It appears only lawyers stand to gain from this, as usual. "lawyers stand to gain from this"
- Retric 3y ago
  The point is it heavily discourages this kind of mid subscription bait and switch. Not living in a world where bait and switch / illegal business practices are 10x as common is the benefit of class action lawsuits not the occasional random check for $1.37 or worse a coupon etc. Long term they could have rolled out adds as people resubscribe and there’s no lawsuit, and next time they may consider doing so.
thomastjeffery 3y ago
Users are also harmed by watching the ads. It would be reasonable to calculate the value of each viewed ad as part of the compensation that is sought by a class-action.
- glitchc 3y ago
  It's hard to show legally that users are harmed by watching ads, tort law requires a clear path to harm. If some users purport some benefit, that would negate the harm claims.
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    Wouldn't one clearcut argument be that many people are willing to pay money specifically to not see ads?
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      I'm willing to pay money to buy a nice car. That doesn't mean a less nice car would harm me.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        If you paid money for a nice car and got a less nice car, you suffered financial harm.
      - dylan604 3y ago
        If less nice car doesn't have some of the same safety features like side impact air bags but are then in a t-bone collision where you are injured because the air bags were not there, then yes.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        If the nicer car doesn't have air bags then that might harm me more. This is orthoganal.

The article mentions the ads are expected to bring in $3 billion annually. Even if the lawsuit is successful, I suspect it will cost Amazon much less than what they are projecting to make.

diggan 3y ago

> Even if the lawsuit is successful, I suspect it will cost Amazon much less than what they are projecting to make. What's the point then? It appears only lawyers stand to gain from this, as usual. As soon as fines and legal infractions are viewed merely as the 'cost of doing business', enforcing regulations becomes futile. At that point, might as well transition to a 'free for all' market rather than maintain a faux judicial system.

voakbasda 3y ago
The point is that fines and legal infractions are the cost of doing business. The government consistently fails to enforce laws in a meaningful way. We are indeed in the midst of a free for all, where "all" here refers to established interests wholly capable of buying legislation and courts.
alwaysrunning 3y ago
> What's the point then? It appears only lawyers stand to gain from this, as usual. "lawyers stand to gain from this"
Retric 3y ago
The point is it heavily discourages this kind of mid subscription bait and switch. Not living in a world where bait and switch / illegal business practices are 10x as common is the benefit of class action lawsuits not the occasional random check for $1.37 or worse a coupon etc. Long term they could have rolled out adds as people resubscribe and there’s no lawsuit, and next time they may consider doing so.

thomastjeffery 3y ago

Users are also harmed by watching the ads. It would be reasonable to calculate the value of each viewed ad as part of the compensation that is sought by a class-action.

glitchc 3y ago
It's hard to show legally that users are harmed by watching ads, tort law requires a clear path to harm. If some users purport some benefit, that would negate the harm claims.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  Wouldn't one clearcut argument be that many people are willing to pay money specifically to not see ads?
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I'm willing to pay money to buy a nice car. That doesn't mean a less nice car would harm me.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      If you paid money for a nice car and got a less nice car, you suffered financial harm.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      If less nice car doesn't have some of the same safety features like side impact air bags but are then in a t-bone collision where you are injured because the air bags were not there, then yes.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        If the nicer car doesn't have air bags then that might harm me more. This is orthoganal.