Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
2 comments 
Court Ruling Points to “Bait-and-Switch,” Suspension of Interruptive Ads and Compensation for Moral Damages After Unilateral Change in Prime Video Rules in 2025
The Court of Bahia determined that Amazon Retail Services of Brazil Ltd. suspends the display of ads that interrupt movies and series on Prime Video and cease charging any additional fee for removing those ads. Additionally, the company was ordered to pay R$ 3,000 for moral damages to a consumer. The decision was made by Judge Dalia Zaro Queiroz, from the Special Consumer Court of Salvador, and classified the company’s conduct as abusive practice, under the Consumer Protection Code (CDC).
According to the judge, there was a unilateral alteration of an essential condition of the service, without adequate and transparent information to the consumer. Furthermore, the additional charge to maintain the originally contracted standard was deemed illegal, as it transferred an unexpected cost to the subscriber to preserve what was already part of the purchased package.
This information was released by the Judiciary of Bahia, as stated in case No. 0206088-81.2025.8.05.0001, and details the reasoning that led to the condemnation of the streaming platform owned by the Amazon group.
-
Two global aviation giants are convicted in Paris and will have to pay R$ 1.3 million each for the crash of the Rio-Paris flight that killed 228 people in 2009.
-
Deputies against the government join forces to maintain a 6×1 schedule, workweeks of up to 52 hours, a 10-year transition, halving the FGTS, and special rules for certain sectors.
-
New law prohibits motorcycle passengers, imposes a fine equivalent to R$ 2,100, and was created to try to curb robberies and attacks committed by criminals using motorcycles in Peru, Brazil’s neighboring country.
-
Gun permits for veterinarians advance in the Chamber: see what changes and what the requirements are
Change in Prime Video Surprised Subscribers Starting February 2025
According to the records, the plaintiff was a subscriber of Amazon Prime, a service that includes free shipping on the marketplace, access to Prime Video, Prime Music, and other benefits. However, starting in February 2025, the consumer was surprised by the display of advertising before and during the playback of movies and series, with no option to skip the ads.
Moreover, the situation worsened when Amazon began requiring an additional payment of R$ 10 per month for users to watch content without advertising interruptions, just as it was at the time of the original service contract.
In light of this scenario, the consumer claimed that the company unilaterally modified the contract, creating a new unfavorable condition that was not initially anticipated. For him, the extra charge represented a breach of legitimate expectation, as the service had been contracted as a streaming platform without interruptive ads.
Amazon’s Defense Argued Contractual Authorization for Service Changes
In its defense, Amazon argued that there was no substantial modification in Prime Video. The company claimed that the catalog of content remained the same, as well as the technical quality of the service offered to subscribers.
Additionally, the platform asserted that the terms of use of Prime Video would allow for changes, adjustments, and updates to the functioning of the service, which, according to the defense, would remove any illegality in the inclusion of advertising.
However, this argument did not convince the Judiciary. For the judge, even if there were generic clauses allowing for updates, this does not authorize changes that directly affect the essence of the contracted service, especially when they impose additional financial burdens on the consumer.
Unilateral Change, Lack of Transparency, and “Bait-and-Switch” Influenced the Ruling
Upon analyzing the case, the judge emphasized that Amazon violated the duty of information, one of the pillars of the CDC. This is because the relevant change in the service was communicated in an insufficient and non-transparent manner, with only 48 hours’ notice, a timeframe considered inadequate for a change that directly impacts the user experience.
More than that, the judge classified the company’s conduct as “bait-and-switch”, a term known as “isca e troca”. This practice occurs when the supplier attracts the consumer with an advantageous offer and subsequently substantially alters the contract conditions, frustrating the expectation created at the time of contracting.
According to the ruling, the inclusion of ads, followed by the additional charge to restore the originally contracted standard, characterized unfair and abusive commercial practice. Based on this, the judge declared the clause that imposed uncommunicated disadvantages to the consumer as abusive.
As a result, it was ordered the suspension of interruptive ads on Prime Video for the plaintiff, as well as the prohibition of any additional charges for removing the ads. It was also established a compensation of R$ 3,000 for moral damages, considering the distress, frustration, and breach of trust suffered by the consumer.
For you, is it acceptable to be interrupted by ads while watching a series or movie on a streaming service that is already paid for, or does this completely undermine the experience promised to the consumer?
With information from: Migalhas
Netflix tbm tem essa palhaçada!
Descaracteriza o formato do contrato feito.