Judge Denies Amazon's Motion to Consolidate Cases Involving Prime Changes

U.S. District Judge Tana Lin for Western Washington in Seattle denied Amazon’s motion to consolidate a class action brought by plaintiff Dena Griffith over Amazon’s removal of free Whole Foods grocery delivery with In Re: Amazon Service Fee Litigation (see 2403130005), said her Thursday order (docket 2:22-cv-00743). The consolidated action involves Amazon’s imposition of a $2.99 monthly add-on fee for Prime members to get commercial-free streaming on its Prime Video service, a perk previously included for free with Prime. Amazon argued for consolidation on the grounds that both cases arise from the company’s changes under Prime and bring claims under consumer protection statutes about its allegedly false or misleading promises about Prime membership. Griffith opposed consolidation, saying the two matters don’t involve common questions of law or fact, and Napoleon argued that the matters are factually and legally different; both plaintiffs said consolidation wouldn't promote judicial economy. Amazon argues that Griffith's case and Napoleon should be consolidated because they involve common questions of law and fact and that judicial economy, consistency of results, and lack of prejudice support consolidation. Though there is some overlap, Lin said, "there are significant differences, both factually and legally, that caution against consolidation." The change in service at Whole Foods took place in 2021 vs. 2024 for Prime Video, Lin noted: “Different changes, three years apart, with different representations to consumers by Defendant.” In addition, Prime Video has its own contractual terms and conditions "that may be at issue in Napoleon but are not applicable to this matter," she said. The putative classes are also different, said the judge. In Griffith, the classes comprise all Prime members who used the Whole Foods delivery service from 2021; the classes in Napoleon comprise annual Prime subscribers as recently as December, the order said. “All these differences would appear to complicate the Court’s management of a consolidated case,” she said.