Amazon Beats Lawsuit Over Disclosure of Prime Video Users’ Info

Amazon.com Inc. defeated for now a proposed class action alleging an affiliate disclosed the video-viewing histories of Prime Video users without their consent in violation of federal and state privacy laws.

Plaintiff Meredith Beagle and two others failed to allege that Amazon.com Services LLC affirmatively disclosed their protected information to Amazon.com Inc. and third parties, Judge James L. Robart of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington said Tuesday.

Their allegations that Amazon.com Services gave access to the plaintiffs’ data didn’t plausibly suggest that it had taken the affirmative step of disclosing the data to Amazon.com Inc. or that Amazon.com Inc. actually received the data, which is a requirement to state a claim under the Video Privacy Protection Act or the California video-privacy statute, Robart said.

The plaintiffs’ claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act failed because they didn’t allege that Amazon.com Services engaged in an unfair act as defined under the statute or that they suffered a cognizable injury, he said.

Robart dismissed the WCPA claims with prejudice, but he gave the plaintiffs leave to amend their claims under the VPPA and the California law.

The plaintiffs’ alleged that Amazon.com Services maintains a “warehouse of data” that it collects from Prime Video users and gives access to the information to Amazon.com Inc. and unaffiliated third parties for the purposes of advertising and audience measurement.

Amazon.com Services discloses its data practices in privacy notices and terms of use, but it effectively buries the disclosures, putting its practices in violation of the VPPA and state privacy laws, the plaintiffs said.

Amazon argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the VPPA and the California law, and Robart agreed.

They alleged at most the mere possibility that Amazon.com Services disclosed their information to Amazon.com Inc., which wasn’t enough to show the company’s liability, he said.

They also failed to allege that Amazon.com Services disclosed their information to unaffiliated third parties, he said.

The plaintiffs’ acknowledgment that Amazon.com Services disclosed its data sharing practices in its terms and conditions was fatal to their WCPA claim, which requires a showing that injury from alleged violations couldn’t be avoided, he said.

All the plaintiffs had to do to avoid the injury was “read the terms and conditions and choose not to use Amazon’s services,” he said.

Burns Charest LLP, Duncan Law LLP, Bragar Eagle & Squire PC, Carson Noel PLLC, and Bursor & Fisher PA represent the plaintiffs and the proposed class. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP represents Amazon.

The case is Beagle v. Amazon.com Inc., W.D. Wash., No. 2:24-cv-00316, 9/3/24.