Plaintiffs' Claims Are 'Cut-and-Paste Job,' Says Amazon Reply to Consolidation Motion

Amazon doesn’t oppose consolidating Barbara Trevino’s fraud case against it with Marcos Ramos' negative reviews case; however, the company denies her claim that it stiffled consumers’ right to free speech, its response said Thursday (docket 2:24-cv-00240) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. The response was made to Trevino's motion for consolidation of actions. Amazon also disagrees with Trevino’s characterization of the claims and issues in her case and the Ramos action as important or “complex.” Trevino’s claims don’t raise “important, complicated, or complex issues” but reflect the “obvious cut-and-paste job of Plaintiff’s counsel and counsel for the plaintiffs in Ramos, who have filed a bevy of similar actions across California asserting meritless claims against a host of companies by taking their standard online terms out of context, contorting, and otherwise misconstruing them,” the response said. Trevino alleges Amazon “changed the deal” on its Prime Video offering by charging consumers an additional $2.99 a month for ad-free streaming, a feature that earlier was part of a Prime membership (see 2403070012). Ramos plaintiffs allege that the conditions of use that Amazon imposes on consumers to use or shop its platforms prohibit them from mentioning Amazon or its brand names in any manner that “disparages or discredits” the company (see 2401050050). Trevino’s “baseless claims against Amazon … rest on a warped and illogical reading of standard online terms protecting Amazon’s IP rights -- terms that have nothing to do with the speech concerns implicated by California’s Yelp Law,” said the response. The e-commerce giant “looks forward to briefing these issues” to the court in its forthcoming motion to dismiss.