German court rules against Amazon over Prime Video advertising
December 18, 2025 13.08 Europe/London By Jörn Krieger

A German court has ruled that Amazon was not entitled to introduce advertising into films and series on Amazon Prime Video without the explicit consent of existing customers, following a lawsuit brought by the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (vzbv).

The Regional Court of Munich I found that Amazon Digital Germany had unlawfully changed the terms of its Prime Video service when it announced in early 2024 that advertising would be added from February of that year. At the time, customers were informed by email that no action was required and that the price of their Prime membership would remain unchanged, while a new ad-free option would be available for an additional €2.99 per month.

According to the court, Prime Video content had previously been provided without advertising interruptions and Amazon had no contractual or legal basis to introduce ads unilaterally. The judges concluded that the company’s communication to customers was misleading and amounted to an impermissible contract amendment. Amazon has been ordered to correct the information provided to affected customers.

Ramona Pop, a Member of the Executive Board of vzbv, said the ruling was significant for consumer rights: “This is a very important judgment. It shows that additional advertising on Amazon Prime Video could not be introduced without the involvement of the affected consumers. In the view of the consumer organisation, members continue to be entitled to an ad-free option without additional costs.”

The case was intended to prevent Amazon from making similar changes in the future. In parallel, the Consumer Advice Centre of Saxony has filed a collective action for damages, seeking compensation for customers affected by the introduction of advertising. The Munich court’s decision is seen as a positive signal for that separate lawsuit, which allows consumers to join free of charge via the official claims register.

The ruling, issued under case number 33 O 3266/24, is not yet legally binding.